Acting with Integrity

Clients, customers, suppliers, investors, retailers, employees, the media, the government, members of the surrounding community, competitors, and even the environment are stakeholders in a business; that is, they are individuals and entities affected by the business’s decisions ((Figure)). Stakeholders typically value a leadership team that chooses the ethical way to accomplish the company’s legitimate for-profit goals. For example, Patagonia expresses its commitment to environmentalism via its “1% for the Planet” program, which donates 1 percent of all sales to help save the planet. In part because of this program, Patagonia has become a market leader in outdoor gear.

Being successful at work may therefore consist of much more than simply earning money and promotions. It may also mean treating our employees, customers, and clients with honesty and respect. It may come from the sense of pride we feel about engaging in honest transactions, not just because the law demands it but because we demand it of ourselves. It may lie in knowing the profit we make does not come from shortchanging others. Thus, business ethics guides the conduct by which companies and their agents abide by the law and respect the rights of their stakeholders, particularly their customers, clients, employees, and the surrounding community and environment. Ethical business conduct permits us to sleep well at night.

Nearly all systems of religious belief stress the building blocks of engaging others with respect, empathy, and honesty. These foundational beliefs, in turn, prepare us for the codes of ethical behavior that serve as ideal guides for business and the professions. Still, we need not subscribe to any religious faith to hold that ethical behavior in business is still necessary. Just by virtue of being human, we all share obligations to one another, and principal among these is the requirement that we treat others with fairness and dignity, including in our commercial transactions.

For this reason, we use the words ethics and morals interchangeably in this book, though some philosophers distinguish between them. We hold that “an ethical person” conveys the same sense as “a moral person,” and we do not regard religious belief as a requirement for acting ethically in business and the professions. Because we are all humans and in the same world, we should extend the same behavior to all. It is the right way to behave, but it also burnishes our own professional reputation as business leaders of integrity.

Integrity—that is, unity between what we say and what we do—is a highly valued trait. But it is more than just consistency of character. Acting with integrity means we adhere strongly to a code of ethics, so it implies trustworthiness and incorruptibility. Being a professional of integrity means consistently striving to be the best person you can be in all your interactions with others. It means you practice what you preach, walk the talk, and do what you believe is right based upon reason. Integrity in business brings many advantages, not the least of which is that it is a critical factor in allowing business and society to function properly.

Successful corporate leaders and the companies they represent will take pride in their enterprise if they engage in business with honesty and fair play. To treat customers, clients, employees, and all those affected by a firm with dignity and respect is ethical. In addition, laudable business practices serve the long-term interests of corporations. Why? Because customers, clients, employees, and society at large will much more willingly patronize a business and work hard on its behalf if that business is perceived as caring about the community it serves. And what type of firm has long-term customers and employees? One whose track record gives evidence of honest business practice.

Many people confuse legal and ethical compliance. They are, however, totally different and call for different standards of behavior. The concepts are not interchangeable in any sense of the word. The law is needed to establish and maintain a functioning society. Without it, our society would be in chaos. Compliance with these legal standards is strictly mandatory: If we violate these standards, we are subject to punishment as established by the law. Therefore, compliance in terms of business ethics generally refers to the extent to which a company conducts its business operations in accordance with applicable regulations, statutes, and laws. Yet this represents only a baseline minimum. Ethical observance builds on this baseline and reveals the principles of an individual business leader or a specific organization. Ethical acts are generally considered voluntary and personal—often based on our perception of or stand on right and wrong.

Some professions, such as medicine and the law, have traditional codes of ethics. The Hippocratic Oath, for example, is embraced by most professionals in health care today as an appropriate standard always owed to patients by physicians, nurses, and others in the field. This obligation traces its lineage to ancient Greece and the physician Hippocrates. Business is different in not having a mutually shared standard of ethics. This is changing, however, as evidenced by the array of codes of conduct and mission statements many companies have adopted over the past century. These have many points in common, and their shared content may eventually produce a code universally claimed by business practitioners. What central point might constitute such a code? Essentially, a commitment to treat with honesty and integrity customers, clients, employees, and others affiliated with a business.

The law is typically indebted to tradition and precedence, and compelling reasons are needed to support any change. Ethical reasoning often is more topical and reflects the changes in consciousness that individuals and society undergo. Often, ethical thought precedes and sets the stage for changes in the law.

Behaving ethically requires that we meet the mandatory standards of the law, but that is not enough. For example, an action may be legal that we personally consider unacceptable. Companies today need to be focused not only on complying with the letter of the law but also on going above and beyond that basic mandatory requirement to consider their stakeholders and do what is right.

Ends, Means, and Character in Business

How, then, should we behave? Philosophy and science help us answer this question. From philosophy, three different perspectives help us assess whether our decisions are ethical on the basis of reason. These perspectives are called normative ethical theories and focus on how people ought to behave; we discuss them in this chapter and in later chapters. In contrast, descriptive ethical theories are based on scientific evidence, primarily in the field of psychology, and describe how people tend to behave within a particular context; however, they are not the subject of this book.

The first normative approach is to examine the ends, or consequences, a decision produces in order to evaluate whether those ends are ethical. Variations on this approach include utilitarianism, teleology, and consequentialism. For example, utilitarianism suggests that an ethical action is one whose consequence achieves the greatest good for the greatest number of people. So if we want to make an ethical decision, we should ask ourselves who is helped and who is harmed by it. Focusing on consequences in this way generally does not require us to take into account the means of achieving that particular end, however. That fact leads us to the second normative theory about what constitutes ethical conduct.

The second approach does examine the means, or actions, we use to carry out a business decision. An example of this approach is deontology, which essentially suggests that it is the means that lend nobility to the ends. Deontology contends that each of us owes certain duties to others (deon is a Greek word for duty or obligation) and that certain universal rules apply to every situation and bind us to these duties. In this view, whether our actions are ethical depends only on whether we adhere to these rules. Thus, the means we use is the primary determinant of ethical conduct. The thinker most closely associated with deontology is the eighteenth-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant ((Figure)).

The third normative approach, typically called virtue theory, focuses on the character of the decision-maker—a character that reflects the training we receive growing up. In this view, our ethical analysis of a decision is intimately connected with the person we choose to be. It is through the development of habits, the routine actions in which we choose to engage, that we are able to create a character of integrity and make ethical decisions. Put differently, if a two-year-old is taught to take care of and return borrowed toys even though this runs contrary to every instinct they have, they may continue to perfect their ethical behavior so that at age forty, they can be counted on to safeguard the tens of millions of dollars investors have entrusted to their care in brokerages.

Virtue theory has its roots in the Greek philosophical tradition, whose followers sought to learn how to live a flourishing life through study, teaching, and practice. The cardinal virtues to be practiced were courage, self-control, justice, and wisdom. Socrates was often cited as a sage and a role model, whose conduct in life was held in high regard.

Profitability and Success: Thinking Long Term

Decades ago, some management theorists argued that a conscientious manager in a for-profit setting acts ethically by emphasizing solely the maximization of earnings. Today, most commentators contend that ethical business leadership is grounded in doing right by all stakeholders directly affected by a firm’s operations, including, but not limited to, stockholders, or those who own shares of the company’s stock. That is, business leaders do right when they give thought to what is best for all who have a stake in their companies. Not only that, firms actually reap greater material success when they take such an approach, especially over the long run.

Nobel Prize–winning economist Milton Friedman stated in a now-famous New York Times Magazine article in 1970 that the only “social responsibility of a business is to increase its profits.”

This concept took hold in business and even in business school education. However, although it is certainly permissible and even desirable for a company to pursue profitability as a goal, managers must also have an understanding of the context within which their business operates and of how the wealth they create can add positive value to the world. The context within which they act is society, which permits and facilitates a firm’s existence.

Thus, a company enters a social contract with society as whole, an implicit agreement among all members to cooperate for social benefits. Even as a company pursues the maximizing of stockholder profit, it must also acknowledge that all of society will be affected to some extent by its operations. In return for society’s permission to incorporate and engage in business, a company owes a reciprocal obligation to do what is best for as many of society’s members as possible, regardless of whether they are stockholders. Therefore, when applied specifically to a business, the social contract implies that a company gives back to the society that permits it to exist, benefiting the community at the same time it enriches itself.

In addition to taking this more nuanced view of profits, managers must also use a different time frame for obtaining them. Wall Street’s focus on periodic (i.e., quarterly and annual) earnings has led many managers to adopt a short-term perspective, which fails to take into account effects that require a longer time to develop. For example, charitable donations in the form of corporate assets or employees’ volunteered time may not show a return on investment until a sustained effort has been maintained for years. A long-term perspective is a more balanced view of profit maximization that recognizes that the impacts of a business decision may not manifest for a longer time.

As an example, consider the business practices of Toyota when it first introduced its vehicles for sale in the United States in 1957. For many years, Toyota was content to sell its cars at a slight loss because it was accomplishing two business purposes: It was establishing a long-term relationship of trust with those who eventually would become its loyal U.S. customers, and it was attempting to disabuse U.S. consumers of their belief that items made in Japan were cheap and unreliable. The company accomplished both goals by patiently playing its long game, a key aspect of its operational philosophy, “The Toyota Way,” which includes a specific emphasis on long-term business goals, even at the expense of short-term profit.

What contributes to a corporation’s positive image over the long term? Many factors contribute, including a reputation for treating customers and employees fairly and for engaging in business honestly. Companies that act in this way may emerge from any industry or country. Examples include Fluor, the large U.S. engineering and design firm; illycaffè, the Italian food and beverage purveyor; Marriott, the giant U.S. hotelier; and Nokia, the Finnish telecommunications retailer. The upshot is that when consumers are looking for an industry leader to patronize and would-be employees are seeking a firm to join, companies committed to ethical business practices are often the first to come to mind.

Why should stakeholders care about a company acting above and beyond the ethical and legal standards set by society? Simply put, being ethical is simply good business. A business is profitable for many reasons, including expert management teams, focused and happy employees, and worthwhile products and services that meet consumer demand. One more and very important reason is that they maintain a company philosophy and mission to do good for others.

Year after year, the nation’s most admired companies are also among those that had the highest profit margins. Going green, funding charities, and taking a personal interest in employee happiness levels adds to the bottom line! Consumers want to use companies that care for others and our environment. During the years 2008 and 2009, many unethical companies went bankrupt. However, those companies that avoided the “quick buck,” risky and unethical investments, and other unethical business practices often flourished. If nothing else, consumer feedback on social media sites such as Yelp and Facebook can damage an unethical company’s prospects.

Stockholders, Stakeholders, and Goodwill

Earlier in this chapter, we explained that stakeholders are all the individuals and groups affected by a business’s decisions. Among these stakeholders are stockholders (or shareholders), individuals and institutions that own stock (or shares) in a corporation. Understanding the impact of a business decision on the stockholder and various other stakeholders is critical to the ethical conduct of business. Indeed, prioritizing the claims of various stakeholders in the company is one of the most challenging tasks business professionals face. Considering only stockholders can often result in unethical decisions; the impact on all stakeholders must be considered and rationally assessed.

Managers do sometimes focus predominantly on stockholders, especially those holding the largest number of shares, because these powerful individuals and groups can influence whether managers keep their jobs or are dismissed (e.g., when they are held accountable for the company’s missing projected profit goals). And many believe the sole purpose of a business is, in fact, to maximize stockholders’ short-term profits. However, considering only stockholders and short-term impacts on them is one of the most common errors business managers make. It is often in the long-term interests of a business not to accommodate stockowners alone but rather to take into account a broad array of stakeholders and the long-term and short-term consequences for a course of action.

Here is a simple strategy for considering all your stakeholders in practice. Divide your screen or page into three columns; in the first column, list all stakeholders in order of perceived priority ((Figure)). Some individuals and groups play more than one role. For instance, some employees may be stockholders, some members of the community may be suppliers, and the government may be a customer of the firm. In the second column, list what you think each stakeholder group’s interests and goals are. For those that play more than one role, choose the interests most directly affected by your actions. In the third column, put the likely impact of your business decision on each stakeholder. This basic spreadsheet should help you identify all your stakeholders and evaluate your decision’s impact on their interests. If you would like to add a human dimension to your analysis, try assigning some of your colleagues to the role of stakeholders and reexamine your analysis.

The positive feeling stakeholders have for any particular company is called goodwill, which is an important component of almost any business entity, even though it is not directly attributable to the company’s assets and liabilities. Among other intangible assets, goodwill might include the worth of a business’s reputation, the value of its brand name, the intellectual capital and attitude of its workforce, and the loyalty of its established customer base. Even being socially responsible generates goodwill. The ethical behavior of managers will have a positive influence on the value of each of those components. Goodwill cannot be earned or created in a short time, but it can be the key to success and profitability.

A company’s name, its corporate logo, and its trademark will necessarily increase in value as stakeholders view that company in a more favorable light. A good reputation is essential for success in the modern business world, and with information about the company and its actions readily available via mass media and the Internet (e.g., on public rating sites such as Yelp), management’s values are always subject to scrutiny and open debate. These values affect the environment outside and inside the company. The corporate culture, for instance, consists of shared beliefs, values, and behaviors that create the internal or organizational context within which managers and employees interact. Practicing ethical behavior at all levels—from CEO to upper and middle management to general employees—helps cultivate an ethical corporate culture and ethical employee relations.

Positive goodwill generated by ethical business practices, in turn, generates long-term business success. As recent studies have shown, the most ethical and enlightened companies in the United States consistently outperform their competitors.

Thus, viewed from the proper long-term perspective, conducting business ethically is a wise business decision that generates goodwill for the company among stakeholders, contributes to a positive corporate culture, and ultimately supports profitability.

You can test the validity of this claim yourself. When you choose a company with which to do business, what factors influence your choice? Let us say you are looking for a financial advisor for your investments and retirement planning, and you have found several candidates whose credentials, experience, and fees are approximately the same. Yet one of these firms stands above the others because it has a reputation, which you discover is well earned, for telling clients the truth and recommending investments that seemed centered on the clients’ benefit and not on potential profit for the firm. Wouldn’t this be the one you would trust with your investments?

Or suppose one group of financial advisors has a long track record of giving back to the community of which it is part. It donates to charitable organizations in local neighborhoods, and its members volunteer service hours toward worthy projects in town. Would this group not strike you as the one worthy of your investments? That it appears to be committed to building up the local community might be enough to persuade you to give it your business. This is exactly how a long-term investment in community goodwill can produce a long pipeline of potential clients and customers.

A Brief Introduction to Corporate Social Responsibility

If you truly appreciate the positions of your various stakeholders, you will be well on your way to understanding the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR). CSR is the practice by which a business views itself within a broader context, as a member of society with certain implicit social obligations and environmental responsibilities. As previously stated, there is a distinct difference between legal compliance and ethical responsibility, and the law does not fully address all ethical dilemmas that businesses face. CSR ensures that a company is engaging in sound ethical practices and policies in accordance with the company’s culture and mission, above and beyond any mandatory legal standards. A business that practices CSR cannot have maximizing shareholder wealth as its sole purpose, because this goal would necessarily infringe on the rights of other stakeholders in the broader society. For instance, a mining company that disregards its corporate social responsibility may infringe on the right of its local community to clean air and water if it pursues only profit. In contrast, CSR places all stakeholders within a proper contextual framework.

An additional perspective to take concerning CSR is that ethical business leaders opt to do good at the same time that they do well. This is a simplistic summation, but it speaks to how CSR plays out within any corporate setting. The idea is that a corporation is entitled to make money, but it should not only make money. It should also be a good civic neighbor and commit itself to the general prospering of society as a whole. It ought to make the communities of which it is part better at the same time it pursues legitimate profit goals. These ends are not mutually exclusive, and it is possible—indeed, praiseworthy—to strive for both. When a company approaches business in this fashion, it is engaging in a commitment to corporate social responsibility.

Ancient Athens

Like a modern metropolis, the city-state (polis) of Athens in the fifth century BCE drew people from far afield who wanted a better life. For some, that life meant engaging in trade and commerce, thanks to the openness of the new democracy established under the lawgiver Cleisthenes in 508 BCE. Others were drawn to Athens’ incredibly rich architecture, poetry, drama, religious practices, politics, and schools of philosophy. Youth traveled there hoping to study with such brilliant teachers as the mathematicians Archimedes and Pythagoras; dramatists like Sophocles and Euripides; historians Herodotus and Thucydides; Hippocrates, the father of medicine; and, of course, the renowned but enigmatic philosopher Socrates. More than being the equivalent of rock stars of their day, these thinkers, scholars, and artists challenged youth to pursue truth, no matter the cost to themselves or their personal ambitions. These leaders were interested not in fame or even in personal development but in the creation of an ideal society. This was the Golden Age of ancient Greece, whose achievements were so profound and enduring that they have formed the pillars of Western civilization for nearly two and a half millennia.

Philosophy, in particular, flourished during the Golden Age, with various schools of thought attempting to make sense of the natural and human worlds. The human world was thought to be grounded in the natural world but to transcend it in striking ways, the most obvious being humans use of reason and deliberation. Philosophers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle tackled fundamental questions of human existence with such insight that their ideas have remained relevant and universal even at the dawn of artificial intelligence. As British mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) observed, “the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.”

Why are the insights of these Greek philosophers still relevant today? One reason is their development of the ancient concept of virtue. The person most closely associated with virtue in the West, and the development of what is now known as virtue ethics—that is, an ethical system based upon the exercise of certain virtues (loyalty, honor, courage) emphasizing the formation of character—is Plato’s famous pupil Aristotle (384–322 BCE) ((Figure)).

Aristotelian Virtue Ethics

For Aristotle, everything that exists has a purpose, or end, and has been designed to meet that end. For instance, the proper end of birds is to fly, that of fish to swim. Birds and fish have been designed with the appropriate means (feathers, fins) to achieve those ends. Teleology, from the Greek telos meaning goal or aim, is the study of ends and the means directed toward those ends. What is the telos of human beings? Aristotle believed it to be eudaimonia, or happiness. By this, he did not mean happiness in a superficial sense, such as having fun or being content. Rather, he equated happiness with human flourishing, which he believed could be attained through the exercise of the function that distinguishes humans from the natural world: reason.

For Aristotle, reason was supreme and best used to increase not wealth but character. “But what is happiness?” he asked. “If we consider what the function of man is, we find that happiness is a virtuous activity of the soul.”

However, because humans are endowed not only with reason but also with the capacity to act in an honorable and ethical manner, they may reject their end, either intentionally or by default. The great task of life, then, is to recognize and pursue happiness, no matter the constraints placed on the individual, the most dramatic of which are suffering and death. Birds and fish have little difficulty achieving their ends, and we can assume that much of this is due to their genetic coding. Because happiness might not be genetically encoded in human beings, they must learn how to be happy. How do they do that? According to Aristotle, eudaimonia is achieved by leading a virtuous life, which is attained over time. “Happiness is a kind of activity; and an activity clearly is developed and is not a piece of property already in one’s possession.”

Aristotle identified two types of virtues, which the philosophical community of his day agreed were objective and not subjective. The two types were intellectual and moral. Intellectual virtues—including knowledge (epistḗmē), wisdom (sophíā), and, most importantly for Aristotle, prudence (phrónēsis), or practical wisdom—served as guides to behavior; that is, a person acted prudently based on the wisdom gained over time through the ongoing acquisition and testing of knowledge. To give an oversimplified but practical application of Aristotelian thinking, a hiring manager acts prudently when assessing a pool of candidates based on knowledge of their backgrounds and on insight gained after years of working in that role. The manager may even use intuitive reason regarding a candidate, which Aristotle believed was another way of arriving at truth. Understood in this way, the manager’s intuition is an impression regarding character and someone’s potential fit in an organization. Among the intellectual virtues, prudence played the major role because it helped individuals avoid excess and deficiency and arrive at the golden mean between the two. Prudence has been translated as “common sense” and “practical wisdom” and helps individuals make the right decision in the right way at the right time for the right reason. In Aristotle’s view, only the truly prudent person could possess all the moral virtues.

The distinction Aristotle made is that the intellectual virtues are acquired purely through learning, whereas the moral virtues are acquired through practice and the development of habits. In contrast to the intellectual virtues, which focused on external acts, the moral virtues had to do with character. They included courage, self-control, liberality, magnificence, honor, patience, and amiability. Some of these virtues had different meanings in ancient Greece than they do today. “Liberal,” for instance, referred not to a political or economic stance but rather to an aspect of personality. Someone would be considered liberal who was open and sharing of him- or herself and his or her talents without fear of rejection or expectation of reciprocity. The paragon of these virtues was the magnanimous individual, someone for whom fame and wealth held little attraction.

This person had self-knowledge; was not rash, quick to anger, or submissive to others; and acted with self-respect, control, and prudence. The magnanimous individual achieved happiness by leading a life characterized by reason and will. He or she remained in control of self and did not hand over his or her authority—or moral agency—to others, whether in judgment or in decision-making. “So, magnanimity seems to be a sort of crown of the virtues, because it enhances them and is never found apart from them. This makes it hard to be truly magnanimous, because it is impossible without all-round excellence,” according to Aristotle.

The relationship between the intellectual and the moral virtues was not as clear cut as it may appear, however, because Aristotle believed that action preceded character. In other words, the primary way to change character was through consistent, intentional behavior in the direction of virtue. Aristotle gave the example of courage. A person was not courageous first and then went about performing acts of courage. Rather, courage resulted from incremental change, small steps taken over time that molded the person’s character. It relied on a recognition of justice, so that courage was directed toward the right end. The important task was developing the habit of leading the virtuous life. Anyone could do this; however, it was a discipline that had to be learned and practiced with dedication. We can see that this habit of virtue is especially relevant for business today, when the temptation to conform to an established organizational culture is overwhelming even when that culture may permit and even encourage questionable practices. Add the seductive power of money, and anyone’s courage might be tested.

The most notable feature of virtue ethics is that it viewed the basic ethical unit—the fundamental agent of morality—as the individual, who lived out his or her worldview publicly. A life of virtue, therefore, took place in the economic and political spheres so that others might participate in and benefit from it. In Athenian society, it was important for business to be conducted competently and ethically. Even though Aristotle was suspicious of business, he acknowledged its importance in preserving and nurturing Athenian democracy. He also praised the creation of money to further the goal of justice, so that a shoemaker and a housebuilder, for instance, could trade their wares on an equal basis. Virtue in the marketplace was demonstrated through ethical behavior, according to Aristotle: “People do in fact seek their own good, and think that they are right to act in this way. It is from this belief that the notion has arisen that such people are prudent. Presumably, however, it is impossible to secure one’s own good independently of domestic and political science.”

This belief in the public nature of virtue was crucial for the flourishing of the city-state and also has implications for contemporary business, which must consider the individual, organization, industry, and society in its development and planning.

Honorable Behavior in Business

The common belief in ancient Greece that business and money were somehow tainted reflected Plato’s concept that the physical world was an imperfect expression, or shadow, of the ideal. Everything in the physical world was somehow less than the ideal, and this included the products of human thought and labor. For example, a cow exists in the physical world as an imperfect and temporary expression of the ideal essence of a cow, what we might call “cowness.” (This imperfection accounted for the many variations found in the earthly creature.) Business, as a human invention based on self-interest, also had no appreciable ideal or end. After all, what was the purpose of making money if not having more money? Any end beyond that was not evident. In other words, money existed simply to replicate itself and was fueled by avarice (the love of money) or greed (the love of material goods). “As for the life of the businessman, it does not give him much freedom of action. Besides, wealth is obviously not the good that we are seeking, because it serves only as a means; i.e., for getting something else,” said Aristotle.

Yet, business had an interesting effect that helped invigorate Athenian life and encouraged those engaged in it to be virtuous (or else risk their reputation). This effect was association. Business was based on the free and fair exchange of goods, which brought not only items of merchandise into association with each other but also buyers, sellers, and public officials. The way to ensure ethically sound association was through the exercise of prudence, especially in its demand that people act not rashly but deliberately. This deliberative aspect of prudence provided a way for buyers, sellers, and everyone engaged in a transaction to act honorably, which was of the utmost importance. Honor was not only a foundational virtue but the cultural environment in which the ancient world existed. One of the worst offenses anyone could commit, whether man, woman, free, or slave, was to act in a dishonorable way. Of course, although acting deliberately does not guarantee that one is acting honorably, for Athenians, acting in a calculated way was not an indication of dishonor. Dishonorable acts included any that disturbed the basic order (dikē) of life in which everyone had a role, including the gods.

Interestingly, the Aristotelian approach to business did not condemn money making or the accumulation of riches. What concerned Aristotle, particularly because of its harmful effects on the individual and the city-state, was greed. Aristotle considered greed an excess that tipped the scales of justice and led to scandal. Money might constitute the bait, but greed causes the person to reach out and grab as much as possible, falling into the trap of scandal. The Greeks considered the exercise of greed an irrational, and therefore ignoble, act. Only attention to honor and deliberative prudence could save someone from acting so foolishly.

Honor in ancient Greece was not just an individual characteristic but also a function of the group to which an individual belonged, and the person derived self-esteem from membership in that group. Civic virtue consisted of honorable living in community. Business scandals today often arise not from conflicts of interest but from conflicts of honor in which employees feel torn by their allegiance to a coworker, a supervisor, or the organization.

Although few people would use the term honor to describe contemporary workplace culture or corporate mission, nearly everyone understands the importance of reputation and its impact, positive or negative, on a business. Reputation is no accident. It is the product of a culture formed by individual and group effort. That effort is directed, intentional, and ongoing.

According to Aristotle, and later thinkers who expanded upon his work, such as thirteenth-century philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas, to act dishonorably casts disrepute on all concerned. Ends and means had to be aligned, particularly in business, which provided people’s livelihoods and secured the economic health of the city-state. Acting honorably meant trying to be magnanimous in all transactions and rising above obsession with baser instincts. The honorable person was magnanimous, prudent, fair, and interested in self-advancement as long as it did not injure personal integrity or the body politic. The importance of prudence is evident because, said Aristotle, it is “concerned with human goods, i.e., things about which deliberation is possible; for we hold that it is the function of the prudent man to deliberate well; and nobody deliberates about things that cannot be otherwise, or that are not means toward an end, and that end is a practical good. And the man who is good at deliberation generally is the one who can aim, by the help of his calculation, at the best of the goods attainable.”

Aquinas further divided Aristotelian prudence into memory, reason, understanding, docility, shrewdness, foresight, circumspection, and caution.

To use these qualities in a constructive way, a business person had to direct them toward an appropriate end, which applies to business today just as it did in fourth-century Athens. A merchant could not make money in a random way but had to keep the needs of customers in mind and conduct business with fair prices and fees. This exercise of prudence was part of the cosmic order that ensured the right management of the home, the marketplace, and civilization itself. Similarly, committing fraud or deception to achieve an end, even if that end were good or just, was not considered an honorable act. Only when ends and means were aligned and worked in harmony were those engaged in the transaction considered virtuous. This virtue, in turn, would lead to the happiness Aristotle envisioned and toward which his entire system of virtue ethics aimed.

How, exactly, did honor and deliberative prudence prevent someone from acting foolishly in life and unethically in business? And what does it look like to follow these virtues today?

Social Upheaval in Ancient China

More than a century and a half before Aristotle and on the other side of the globe, Confucius, a wandering preacher from the principality of Lu in China, also struggled to answer life’s questions, although in a practical rather than a philosophical way. Confucius committed himself to healing the social divisions that were tearing China apart under the declining Zhou Dynasty. Those divisions led to what historians call the “Period of the Warring States,” which persisted for two hundred years after Confucius’s death. It was a time of constant warfare and violence.

To counter the social disintegration he found everywhere, Confucius looked to the past, or “the wisdom of the ancients.” He called for a “return to li,” which was the proper order of the universe in which everyone had a role to play and there was harmony in the world.

We might see this harmony in a contemporary business setting as a team of people bringing different talents to bear on a specific project for the good (and profit) of the company. In this sense, li refers to doing those tasks in collaboration with others to achieve the mission of the organization. For Confucius, li was expressed through ritual acts. When the correct rituals were followed in the right way with the right intention for the right end, all was well. Of course, corporate rituals also exist, and like all ritual acts, they reinforce cohesion and identity within the group. Identifying them helps improve employee awareness, productivity, and, perhaps, happiness. One example of this would be new-employee orientation, which is intended to acclimate newcomers to the corporate culture, the company ethos, and the traditions associated with the way the firm does business. Finally, anticipating Aristotle’s golden mean, li emphasized the middle ground between deficiency and excess. “Nothing in excess” was its guiding principle.

Huston Smith, noted historian of world religions, has observed that the widespread adoption of Confucius’s teachings within a generation of his death was not due to the originality of his ideas.

What made the humble scholar the greatest cultural force in China’s history was chance. Confucius appeared on the scene at the right time, offering a fractured country an alternative to two extremes, neither of which was working. These were a realism that was tyrannical and relied on brute force to restrain the rivaling factions, and an idealistic approach called Mohism that was based on universal love and mutual aid. Confucius rejected the first as crude and the second as utopian.

Instead, he offered a practical but empathetic approach, a sort of tough love for the times.

Confucian Virtue Ethics

Scholars believe that, like Aristotle, Confucius stressed the virtuous life in his ethical system, with the goal of creating a junzi, or a person who was gracious, magnanimous, and cultured: in other words, a flourishing human being. A junzi exhibited refinement, self-control, and balance in all things, acting neither rashly nor timidly. Such a person was the opposite of a “small” individual, who spent his or her time embroiled in petty rivalries and for whom power was the ultimate measure of success.

The concept of junzi and the Aristotelian magnanimous individual have much in common, except that for Confucius, there was added urgency. To be a junzi was a matter not just of honor but of survival. It is no exaggeration to say that China’s very existence depended upon the ability of individuals—nobles and peasants alike—to rise above the barbarity around them and embrace a way of life directed both outward toward social, political, and administrative reform and inward toward spiritual development. Confucius ((Figure)) believed that living the virtues he taught would achieve both these ends.

The keystone of Confucius’s deliberate tradition was the dao of humanity, or the Way, which established humanity as the answer to rampant lawlessness.

Confucius believed people were inherently good and that the way to stop inhuman behavior was to make them even better, or more human. He identified three means to do this, which we explore next: “whole-hearted sincerity and truthfulness,” the “constant mean,” and “expediency” (quan).

Specific virtues like moral character, righteousness, wisdom, courage, respect, filial piety, and simplicity formed part of these means. Someone who lived virtuously became more human, which resulted in a flourishing individual and an ordered world.

“Whole-hearted sincerity and truthfulness” meant more than sincerity, because even liars can be convincing. The sincerity Confucius had in mind was closer to loyalty, and the thing to which humans had to be loyal was truth. Confucius intended to counter the blind loyalty that had contributed to the eruption of anarchy throughout China. For instance, if a subject were called upon to offer advice, the subject had to be truthful, even though the ruler might not like the advice, which actually happened to Confucius, causing him to resign his post as minister of justice in Lu.

What a subject owed the ruler was not cloying deference but the truth, which would benefit everyone in the long run. The implications for ethical behavior in modern corporations may be obvious. Reporting unethical behavior as a whistleblower or even standing up for truth in a meeting is sometimes easier said than done, which is why living virtuously requires disciplined practice and the support of like-minded individuals.

The “constant mean” refers to balance between excess and deficiency in an existential and in a practical sense. We are to follow the middle path, avoiding extremes of thought and action through ritual acts. We cannot claim to lead a balanced life; we must show it by performing acts that maintain personal and collective order. The Book of Li catalogues many of these acts, which form a guide for proper living, indicating the correct way to maintain the five great relationships that support Chinese society: parent/child, husband/wife, elder/junior sibling, master/apprentice, and ruler/subject. Confucius and his peers believed that properly observing these key five relationships was essential for social good and would invoke divine favor on the people.

Note that three of these are relationships within the family. The family was the basic unit of society and Confucius’s hope for reform, because it was the primary and most influential school of character, virtue, and conscience. Thus, the return to li takes on greater significance than a simple longing for an idyllic past. As Huston Smith noted, “that three of the Five Relationships pertain within the family is indicative of how important Confucius considered this institution to be. In this he was not inventing but continuing the Chinese assumption that the family is the basic unit of society. This assumption is graphically embedded in Chinese legend, which credits the hero who ‘invented’ the family with elevating the Chinese from the animal to human level.”

For Confucius, the third approach to the Way of humanity was the doctrine of expediency. Where Buddhism and Taoism advocated compassion and Mohism advocated universal love, Confucianism defined righteousness as the virtue that would temper compassion and love so that people could live together not just peacefully but justly.

Righteousness included a practical approach to problem solving that helped politics, diplomacy, and civil administration to flourish. This expediency, or quan, is a noteworthy feature of Confucianism. Originally referring to a piece of metal used in balancing scales, quan is applied when weighing options in a moral dilemma and acts as a counterbalance to achieve fairness, enabling parties in a transaction to arrive at an equitable agreement. Ultimately, quan allows people and institutions to prioritize responsive action over ritual and serves as the way to align what people do with who they are, thus allowing them to become more human. For the businessperson, it might mean not fleeing the “tawdry” world of the marketplace but recognizing the humanity within it.

One example of the use of quan is the Broad Group, a Chinese manufacturer of central air conditioning products. The company produces clean energy systems and has developed an alternative to Freon. The new coolant has changed the way energy is delivered to such an extent that Zhang Yue, the company’s chief executive officer, was awarded the Champions of the Earth prize by the United Nations in 2011 for his work in green energy.

Certainly, there is more opportunity for sustainable manufacturing and ethical business practices throughout China, and the state is attempting to promote such efforts.

A Confucian Business Model

The spirituality that emerges from quan as righteousness is not solely about the individual; it is about the act itself, that is, the transaction, whether that takes place in a market, shop, or loading dock. When righteousness is directed outward in this way, it becomes justice, compelling all parties in a transaction to act in good faith or risk upsetting the proper order of things. Justice in this sense allows for wealth creation, investment, and strategic planning as long as all fulfill their roles and act in the manner of a junzi. An overarching spirituality of business may even develop, arising from the people who collectively make up the company. This is a traditionally Confucian way of looking at corporate culture, as the reflection of a larger network of relationships.

The other two Confucian ways of humanity also relate to business, because wholeheartedness and sincerity can serve as models of risk assessment, requiring clearheaded thinking and action balanced with respect for markets, competitors, and stakeholders. The dao of humanity rejects the premise that greed reigns supreme by itself. Instead, its ethical counterpart is truth. Both qualities exist within business practices. In this ethical framework, loyalty to truth is not just a stock phrase but a commitment to value in all aspects of an enterprise, such as sales, finance, marketing, and the employment and hiring chain. An investment advisor might recommend the constant mean to clients so their money is in a diversified portfolio with a long-term strategy. The dao of humanity, wholeheartedness, sincerity, and the other virtues are treated in The Analects ((Figure)).

Some have criticized Confucianism for impeding progress in China in areas like education, the natural sciences, and business, because it has failed to adapt to the modern context. High-frequency trading, blockchain technology, artificial intelligence, and robotics do not work with cultural values thousands of years old, these critics say, so what we need is a new consciousness for a new era in human history. However, these criticisms miss the point. Confucius was interested in the same thing that concerned Aristotle—namely, the character of the person or persons making decisions rather than the decisions themselves. The importance of character has been proven repeatedly through business scandals like Enron, LIBOR, and the 2008 financial crisis, as well as the recent problems of Uber and Volkswagen, in which personal irresponsibility resulted in disaster. Indeed, business schools now offer seminars for executives integrating virtue ethics—both Aristotelian- and Confucian-inspired models—in leadership development.

The recent campaign of China’s central government against unethical business practices has made a point of prosecuting executives for corruption in the form of bribery, kickbacks, and embezzlement, demonstrating that some Confucian thought has survived from ancient times. Jack Ma, cofounder of the giant Chinese ecommerce site Alibaba, has called this “clean communism,” which might be another way of characterizing the form of state-sponsored capitalism that exists in China.

Of course, the former Communist regime did not embrace Confucian virtue. Mao Zedong was deeply suspicious of Confucius, holding him to be a relic of the Imperial Era and having little value for the new China he intended to create with the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949.

East Meets West

Given the vastly different cultural and historical settings of ancient Greece and China, you may be surprised to find similarities between the Aristotelian and Confucian systems of virtue ethics. Yet not only are there similarities but the two systems share the theme of control. For Aristotle, control manifested itself through the deliberative process of phrónēsis, resulting in virtuous living, harmony, and happiness. This application of practical wisdom was related to self-restraint, or temperance. In Confucian virtue ethics, control was a function of self-regulation; primitive instincts were held at bay and the person gained the capacity and courage to act more humanely ((Figure)). This achievement of control benefited not only the individual but also the family and, by extension, the nation. Self-regulation was Confucius’s way of establishing order.

In a business context, control bears directly on managerial ethics, which is a way of relating to self, employees, and the organization that balances individual and collective responsibility, and in which management also includes planning, organizing, and leading to achieve organizational goals.

A self-controlled, disciplined manager is able to work through layers of bureaucracy and the complexities of human interaction to attain goals in a way that is responsible and profitable and that enhances the organization’s mission and culture. These goals are achieved not at the expense of stakeholders but in a way that is fair for all. We might even say that righteousness leads to justice, which includes profit. We saw earlier that neither Aristotle nor Confucius disapproved of profit as long as it benefitted humanity in some way. Both men would have a very definite opinion about the optimization of shareholder wealth.

Despite these similarities between the two traditions, there are differences—the most notable being the locus of ethics. Aristotle placed this locus on individuals, who were called to fulfill their purpose honorably, accepting fate with dignity and aplomb. The basis of this acceptance was reason. For Confucius, reflecting the historical plight of China, the locus was the family, which he envisioned as putting an end to anarchy and setting the nation on its proper course by providing the basic pattern of relationships for personal and professional life. To be sure, family counted for Aristotle just as the individual counted for Confucius, but the emphasis in each system was different. Aristotle acknowledged that “a solitary man has a hard life, because it is not easy to keep up a continuous activity by oneself; but in company with others and in relation to others it is easier.”

Regardless of the source of ethical behavior, those engaged in business were required to act with accountability and responsibility. They were accountable to customers and suppliers when delivering commodities like figs, pottery, or olive oil. And they had to conduct themselves responsibly to maintain their personal and professional reputation. Thus, business was the perfect expression of ethics in both East and West, because it provided a forum within which virtues were tested in very real ways. Confucius urged each follower to be a great or humane person, or ru, not a small one.

This was so important that the school established after his death was known as the Ru School, and the principles it taught are called Ruism.

Personal and Professional Roles

Another important characteristic of Eastern and Western systems of virtue ethics is the integration of personal and professional life. A person could not act one way at home and a completely different way in public, especially civic leaders, merchants, teachers, and rulers. The modern tendency to compartmentalize various aspects of ourselves to accommodate circumstances would have puzzled those living in ancient Greece or China. A retail manager who contributes generously to help protect endangered species but thinks nothing of working the sales staff to the point of burnout to achieve monthly goals has not successfully integrated the personal and the professional, for instance, and even poses obstacles to individual happiness and life in the community. Everyone desires efficiency in business, but compartmentalizing our personal and professional ideals can lead to “dispersed personal accountability” in an organization and the kind of financial meltdown that occurred, through greed and rule-breaking, in the housing and financial industries and led to the worldwide recession of 2008.

What might the integration of personal and professional life look like, and how can we apply it within the relationships that are the foundation of business? To answer this question, consider the essence of the virtuous person that each ethical system strove to create. For Aristotle, the virtuous person saw the truth in every kind of situation. Once acknowledged and recognized, the truth could not be denied without compromising honor. Similarly, Confucius taught that “A gentleman will not, for the space of a meal, depart from humanity. In haste and flurry, he adheres to it; in fall and stumble, he adheres by it.”

Despite the emphasis these systems placed on character, however, character was not ultimately what defined the virtuous individual, family, city-state, or nation. Instead, it was the individual’s transformation, through education, into a different kind of being who will act virtuously even if no one is watching. When the person concentrates on the means used to achieve an end, eventually the means become a way of life even more important than the end itself. It is not merely that the means must match the end, but that they come to define the virtuous person.

The integration of personal and professional lives has two effects: motive and awareness. Motive is the willingness to do the right thing because it is the right thing, even though there may be no perceived benefit. Arguably, it is here that the individual’s true nature is revealed. The other effect, awareness, is the ability to see the ethical dimension in all events, choices, decisions, and actions. Many business scandals could be avoided if more people understood the value of human capital and the need to see the larger picture; to put it differently: responsibility over profitability. Or, as Confucius would say, it is the person who can broaden the Way, not the Way that broadens the person.

Is There a Universal Ethics?

A fundamental question in the study of ethics is whether we can identify universal, objective moral truths that cut across cultures, geographic settings, and time. At the most foundational level, the answer might be yes. As Aristotle noted, ethics is not a science but an art.

Perhaps the best way to answer the question is to consider the methods used for moral decision-making. This strategy would be in line with Aristotelian and Confucian models if we assume that once they attain insight, most people will follow their conscience and act in reasonable, responsible ways. Methods of decision-making then could be adapted to any context or dilemma. But what constitutes a reasonable, responsible method, and who gets to choose it?

It is possible that standards of ethical conduct could be created to guide business affairs fairly and justly. Such standards already exist in most industries and professions. The Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) give direction to those working in accounting and finance in the United States. The International Standards Organization offers guidelines and protocols for many industries. Together with governmental regulation, these might serve as the basis for ethical behavior, perhaps even globally. Of course, those fashioning guidelines would have to be sensitive to individual autonomy and national sovereignty, especially when it comes to international jurisdiction, privacy, and human rights. For example, the International Financial Reporting Standards serve as a kind of international GAAP to help companies report financial results in a common accounting language across national boundaries.

Despite our best efforts, someone who wishes to conduct business selfishly and unethically always will be drawn to do so unless given a compelling incentive not to. It is evident why Aristotle and Confucius stressed the importance of schooling. Perhaps what is needed now, building on these two ancient approaches, is business education focused on transformation rather than on conformity to guidelines. This proposal touches the core of both Aristotelian and Confucian teachings: training and education. Training and education help internalize in us more altruistic business practices. They also permit greater integration between our personal and professional understandings of the way we should treat friends, family, customers, and clients. No matter the context, we are then encouraged to treat others with honesty and respect, so that even someone certain to get away with the most outrageous corruption or money-laundering scheme would not do it. Why not? Because doing so would be a betrayal of the person’s conscience and identity. A business education that is truly effective—one for the twenty-first century—would produce a graduate who could stand up and say no to that kind of self-betrayal.

Maximizing Utility

During Bentham’s lifetime, revolutions occurred in the American colonies and in France, producing the Bill of Rights and the Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme (Declaration of the Rights of Man), both of which were based on liberty, equality, and self-determination. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published The Communist Manifesto in 1848. Revolutionary movements broke out that year in France, Italy, Austria, Poland, and elsewhere.

In addition, the Industrial Revolution transformed Great Britain and eventually the rest of Europe from an agrarian (farm-based) society into an industrial one, in which steam and coal increased manufacturing production dramatically, changing the nature of work, property ownership, and family. This period also included advances in chemistry, astronomy, navigation, human anatomy, and immunology, among other sciences.

Given this historical context, it is understandable that Bentham used reason and science to explain human behavior. His ethical system was an attempt to quantify happiness and the good so they would meet the conditions of the scientific method. Ethics had to be empirical, quantifiable, verifiable, and reproducible across time and space. Just as science was beginning to understand the workings of cause and effect in the body, so ethics would explain the causal relationships of the mind. Bentham rejected religious authority and wrote a rebuttal to the Declaration of Independence in which he railed against natural rights as “rhetorical nonsense, nonsense upon stilts.”

Instead, the fundamental unit of human action for him was utility—solid, certain, and factual.

What is utility? Bentham’s fundamental axiom, which underlies utilitarianism, was that all social morals and government legislation should aim for producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism, therefore, emphasizes the consequences or ultimate purpose of an act rather than the character of the actor, the actor’s motivation, or the particular circumstances surrounding the act. It has these characteristics: (1) universality, because it applies to all acts of human behavior, even those that appear to be done from altruistic motives; (2) objectivity, meaning it operates beyond individual thought, desire, and perspective; (3) rationality, because it is not based in metaphysics or theology; and (4) quantifiability in its reliance on utility.

Bentham was interested in reducing utility to a single index so that units of it could be assigned a numerical and even monetary value, which could then be regulated by law. This utility function measures in “utils” the value of a good, service, or proposed action relative to the utilitarian principle of the greater good, that is, increasing happiness or decreasing pain. Bentham thus created a “hedonic calculus” to measure the utility of proposed actions according to the conditions of intensity, duration, certainty, and the probability that a certain consequence would result.

He intended utilitarianism to provide a reasoned basis for making judgments of value rather than relying on subjectivity, intuition, or opinion. The implications of such a system on law and public policy were profound and had a direct effect on his work with the British House of Commons, where he was commissioned by the Speaker to decide which bills would come up for debate and vote. Utilitarianism provided a way of determining the total amount of utility or value a proposal would produce relative to the harm or pain that might result for society.

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. In consequentialism, actions are judged solely by their consequences, without regard to character, motivation, or any understanding of good and evil and separate from their capacity to create happiness and pleasure. Thus, in utilitarianism, it is the consequences of our actions that determine whether those actions are right or wrong. In this way, consequentialism differs from Aristotelian and Confucian virtue ethics, which can accommodate a range of outcomes as long as the character of the actor is ennobled by virtue. For Bentham, character had nothing to do with the utility of an action. Everyone sought pleasure and avoided pain regardless of personality or morality. In fact, too much reliance on character might obscure decision-making. Rather than making moral judgments, utilitarianism weighed acts based on their potential to produce the most good (pleasure) for the most people. It judged neither the good nor the people who benefitted. In Bentham’s mind, no longer would humanity depend on inaccurate and outdated moral codes. For him, utilitarianism reflected the reality of human relationships and was enacted in the world through legislative action.

To illustrate the concept of consequentialism, consider the hypothetical story told by Harvard psychologist Fiery Cushman. When a man offends two volatile brothers with an insult, Jon wants to kill him; he shoots but misses. Matt, who intends only to scare the man but kills him by accident, will suffer a more severe penalty than his brother in most countries (including the United States). Applying utilitarian reasoning, can you say which brother bears greater guilt for his behavior? Are you satisfied with this assessment of responsibility? Why or why not?

Synthesizing Rights and Utility

As you might expect, utilitarianism was not without its critics. Thomas Hodgskin (1787–1869) pointed out what he said was the “absurdity” of insisting that “the rights of man are derived from the legislator” and not nature.

In a similar vein, the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772–1834) accused Bentham of mixing up morality with law.

Others objected that utilitarianism placed human beings on the same level as animals and turned people into utility functions. There were also complaints that it was mechanistic, antireligious, and too impractical for most people to follow. John Stuart Mill sought to answer these objections on behalf of his mentor but then offered a synthesis of his own that brought natural rights together with utility, creating a new kind of utilitarianism, one that would eventually serve to underpin neoclassical economic principles.

Mill’s father, James, was a contemporary and associate of Bentham’s who made sure his son was tutored in a rigorous curriculum. According to Mill, at an early age he learned enough Greek and Latin to read the historians Herodotus and Tacitus in their original languages.

His studies also included algebra, Euclidean geometry, economics, logic, and calculus.

His father wanted him to assume a leadership position in Bentham’s political movement, known as the Philosophical Radicals.

Unfortunately, the intensity and duration of Mill’s schooling—utilitarian conditions of education—were so extreme that he suffered a nervous breakdown at the age of twenty years. The experience left him dissatisfied with Bentham’s philosophy of utility and social reform. As an alternative, Mill turned to Romanticism and poets like Coleridge and Johann Wolfgang Goethe (1749–1832).

What he ended up with, however, was not a rejection of utilitarianism but a synthesis of utility and human rights.

Why rights? No doubt, Mill’s early life and formation had a great deal to do with his championing of individual freedom. He believed the effort to achieve utility was unjustified if it coerced people into doing things they did not want to do. Likewise, the appeal to science as the arbiter of truth would prove just as futile, he believed, if it did not temper facts with compassion. “Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing,” he wrote.

Mill was interested in humanizing Bentham’s system by ensuring that everyone’s rights were protected, particularly the minority’s, not because rights were God given but because that was the most direct path to truth. Therefore, he introduced the harm principle, which states that the “only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”

To be sure, there are limitations to Mill’s version of utilitarianism, just as there were with the original. For one, there has never been a satisfactory definition of “harm,” and what one person finds harmful another may find beneficial. For Mill, harm was defined as the set back of one’s interests. Thus, harm was defined relative to an individual’s interests. But what role, if any, should society play in defining what is harmful or in determining who is harmed by someone’s actions? For instance, is society culpable for not intervening in cases of suicide, euthanasia, and other self-destructive activities such as drug addiction? These issues have become part of the public debate in recent years and most likely will continue to be as such actions are considered in a larger social context. We may also define intervention and coercion differently depending on where we fall on the political spectrum.

Considering the social implications of an individual action highlights another limitation of utilitarianism, and one that perhaps makes more sense to us than it would to Bentham and Mill, namely, that it makes no provision for emotional or cognitive harm. If the harm is not measurable in physical terms, then it lacks significance. For example, if a reckless driver today irresponsibly exceeds the speed limit, crashes into a concrete abutment, and kills himself while totaling his vehicle (which he owns), utilitarianism would hold that in the absence of physical harm to others, no one suffers except the driver. We may not arrive at the same conclusion. Instead, we might hold that the driver’s survivors and friends, along with society as a whole, have suffered a loss. Arguably, all of us are diminished by the recklessness of his act.

The Role of Utilitarianism in Contemporary Business

Utilitarianism is used frequently when business leaders make critical decisions about things like expansion, store closings, hiring, and layoffs. They do not necessarily refer to a “utilitarian calculus,” but whenever they take stock of what is to be gained and what might be lost in any significant decision (e.g., in a cost-benefit analysis), they make a utilitarian determination. At the same time, one might argue that a simple cost-benefits analysis is not a utilitarian calculus unless it includes consideration of all stakeholders and a full accounting of externalities, worker preferences, potentially coercive actions related to customers, or community and environmental effects.

As a practical way of measuring value, Bentham’s system also plays a role in risk management. The utility function, or the potential for benefit or loss, can be translated into decision-making, risk assessment, and strategic planning. Together with data analytics, market evaluations, and financial projections, the utility function can provide managers with a tool for measuring the viability of prospective projects. It may even give them an opportunity to explore objections about the mechanistic and impractical nature of utilitarianism, especially from a customer perspective.

Utilitarianism could motivate individuals within the organization to take initiative, become more responsible, and act in ways that enhance the organization’s reputation rather than tarnish it. Mill’s On Liberty ((Figure)), a short treatment of political freedoms in tension with the power of the state, underscored the importance of expression and free speech, which Mill saw not as one right among many but as the foundational right, reflective of human nature, from which all others rights derive their meaning. And therein lay the greatest utility for society and business. For Mill, the path to utility led through truth, and the main way of arriving at truth was through a deliberative process that encouraged individual expression and the clash of ideas.

As for Mill’s harm principle, the first question in trying to arrive at a business decision might be, does this action harm others? If the answer is yes, we must make a utilitarian calculation to decide whether there is still a greater good for the greatest number. Then we must ask, who are the others we must consider? All stakeholders? Only shareholders? What does harm entail, and who decides whether a proposed action might be harmful? This was the reason science and debate were so important to Mill, because the determination could not be left to public opinion or intuition. That was how tyranny started. By introducing deliberation, Mill was able to balance utility with freedom, which was a necessary condition for utility.

Where Bentham looked to numerical formulas for determining value, relying on the objectivity of numbers, Mill sought value in reason and in the power of language to clarify where truth lies. The lesson for contemporary business, especially with the rise of big data, is that we need both numbers and reasoned principles. If we apply the Aristotelian and Confucian rule of the mean, we see that balance of responsibility and profitability makes the difference between sound business practices and poor ones.

Aroused From “Dogmatic Slumber”

In 1781, at the age of fifty-six years, Kant published Critique of Pure Reason (Kritik der Reinen Vernunft) in Königsberg, Prussia ((Figure)).

Almost immediately, it transformed him from an obscure professor of metaphysics and logic into a preeminent figure in the world of philosophy. In the 800-page tome, Kant criticized the way rationalism (“pure reason”) had assumed the mantle of absolute truth, supplanting both religious faith and empirical science. Kant referred to the unquestioned acceptance of rationalism as dogmatism. Whether Christian or revolutionary, dogmatic thinking was to be avoided because it obscured the truths of science and religion through flawed logic.

Kant credited the skepticism of empirical philosopher David Hume (1711–1776) with awakening him from “dogmatic slumber,” although he disagreed with Hume, who claimed that the mind did not exist at all but was the result of mental associations derived from sensory experience.

For Kant, reality could be discerned not through reasoning or sensory experience alone but only by understanding the nature of the human mind. Kant argued that sensory experience did not create the mind but rather that the mind created experience through its internal structures. And within the mind’s complex structures there also existed an inherent and unconditional duty to act ethically, which Kant called the “categorical imperative,” first outlined in Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785).

In its initial form, Kant’s described his concept of the categorical imperative as follows: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”

Kant’s categorical (or unconditional) imperative has practical applications for the study of ethics. The categorical imperative contains two major suppositions: (1) We must act on the basis of goodwill rather than purely on self-interested motives that benefit ourselves at the expense of others; (2) we must never treat others as means toward ends benefitting ourselves without consideration of them also as ends in themselves. Kant held that observing the categorical imperative as we consider what actions to take would directly lead to ethical actions on our part.

In Kant’s view, rationalism and empiricism prevented people from perceiving the truth about their own nature. What was that truth? What was sufficient to constitute it? Kant identified an a priori world of knowledge and understanding in which truth lay in the structures and categories of the mind that were beyond perception and reason. This was a radical concept for the times.

In the end, Kant’s systematic analysis of knowing and understanding provided a much-needed counterweight to the logic of Enlightenment rationalism. The existence of the mental structures he proposed has even been confirmed today. For instance, the scientific consensus is that humans are born with cognitive structures designed specifically for language acquisition and development. Even more surprising, there may be similar cognitive structures for morality, conscience, and moral decision-making.

So, it is quite possible that conscience, if not happiness, may have a genetic component after all, although Kant himself did not believe the categories of the understanding or the a priori structures of the mind were biological.

Utilitarianism and Deontology

From a Kantian perspective, it is clear that adherence to duty is what builds the framework for ethical acts. This is in direct contradiction of Bentham’s view of human nature as selfish and requiring an objective calculus for ethical action to result. Kant rejected the idea of such a calculus and believed, instead, that perceptions were organized into preexisting categories or structures of the mind. Compare his notion of an ordered and purposeful universe of laws with the similar logos, or logic, of the ancient Greeks. One of those laws included implementation of the categorical imperative to act ethically, in accordance with our conscience. However, even though that imperative ought to be followed without exception, not everyone does so. In Kant’s moral teachings, individuals still had free will to accept or reject it.

There is a definite contrast between utilitarianism, even Mill’s version, and Kant’s system of ethics, known as deontology, in which duty, obligation, and good will are of the highest importance. (The word is derived from the Greek deon, meaning duty, and logos again, here meaning organization for the purpose of study.

) An ethical decision requires us to observe only the rights and duties we owe to others, and, in the context of business, act on the basis of a primary motive to do what is right by all stakeholders. Kant was not concerned with utility or outcome—his was not a system directed toward results. The question for him was not how to attain happiness but how to become worthy of it.

Rather like Aristotle and Confucius, Kant taught that the transcendent aspects of human nature, if followed, would lead us inevitably to treat people as ends rather than means. To be moral meant to renounce uninformed dogmatism and rationalism, abide by the categorical imperative, and embrace freedom, moral sense, and even divinity. This was not a lofty or unattainable goal in Kant’s mind, because these virtues constituted part of the systematic structuring of the human mind. It could be accomplished by living truthfully or, as we say today, authentically. Such a feat transcended the logic of both rationalism and empiricism.

Kantian Business Ethics

Unlike utilitarianism, which forms the philosophical foundation for most cost-benefit analysis in business, Kantian ethics is not so easily applied. On one hand, it offers a unique opportunity for the development of individual morality through the categorical imperative to act ethically, which emphasizes humanity and autonomy.

This imperative addresses one major side of business ethics: the personal. Character and moral formation are crucial to creating an ethical culture. Indeed, business ethics is littered with cases of companies that have suffered damaging crises due to their leaders’ lack of commitment to act on the basis of a good will and with regard for what benefits others. Recent examples include Uber, where a toxic work environment was allowed to prevail, and Volkswagen, which knowingly misrepresented the emissions level of its cars.

Such examples exist in government as well, as the recent Theranos and “Fat Leonard” scandals confirm.

The latter consisted of graft and corruption in the U.S. Navy’s Pacific fleet and has been a continual source of embarrassment for an institution that prides itself on the honorable conduct of its officers. One person can make a difference, either positively or negatively.

On the other hand, Kant’s categorical imperative is just that: categorical or unconditional. It calls for morally upright behavior regardless of external circumstance or the historical context of a proposed act or decision. Kant affirmed that “the moral law is an imperative, which commands categorically, because the law is unconditioned.”

Unconditional ethics could be a challenge for a global organization dealing with suppliers, customers, and competitors in sometimes vastly different cultures. It raises a larger philosophical issue: namely, was Kant correct in believing that morality and mental categories are independent of experience? Or can they be culturally conditioned, and, if so, does that make them relative rather than absolute, as Kant believed them to be?

This question whether ethics is universal is distinctly Kantian, because Kant believed that not only must a moral agent act with others’ interests in mind and have the right intentions, but also that the action be universally applicable. Think of how Kantian ethics might be applied not just on an individual level but throughout an organization, and then society. Kant would judge a corporate act to be ethical if it benefitted others at the same time it benefitted company leadership and stockholders, and if it did not place their interests above those of other stakeholders. If loyalty to a coworker conflicted with loyalty to a supervisor or the organization, for instance, then acts resulting from such loyalty might not meet the conditions of deontology. Either the supervisor or the company would be treated as a means rather than an end. Although the qualitative or humanizing element of Kantian ethics has broad appeal, it runs into limitations in an actual business setting. Whether the limitations have good or bad effects depends on the organization’s culture and leadership. In general, however, most companies do not adhere to strict Kantian theories, because they look to the outcome of their decisions rather than focusing on motives or intentions.

Justice Theory

Rawls developed a theory of justice based on the Enlightenment ideas of thinkers like John Locke (1632–1704) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), who advocated social contract theory. Social contract theory held that the natural state of human beings was freedom, but that human beings will rationally submit to some restrictions on their freedom to secure their mutual safety and benefit, not subjugation to a monarch, no matter how benign or well intentioned. This idea parallels that of Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), who interpreted human nature to be selfish and brutish to the degree that, absent the strong hand of a ruler, chaos would result. So people willingly consent to transfer their autonomy to the control of a sovereign so their very lives and property will be secured. Rousseau rejected that view, as did Rawls, who expanded social contract theory to include justice as fairness. In A Theory of Justice (1971), Rawls introduced a universal system of fairness and a set of procedures for achieving it. He advocated a practical, empirically verifiable system of governance that would be political, social, and economic in its effects.

Rawls’s justice theory contains three principles and five procedural steps for achieving fairness. The principles are (1) an “original position,” (2) a “veil of ignorance,” and (3) unanimity of acceptance of the original position.

By original position, Rawls meant something akin to Hobbes’ understanding of the state of nature, a hypothetical situation in which rational people can arrive at a contractual agreement about how resources are to be distributed in accordance with the principles of justice as fairness. This agreement was intended to reflect not present reality but a desired state of affairs among people in the community. The veil of ignorance ((Figure)) is a condition in which people arrive at the original position imagining they have no identity regarding age, sex, ethnicity, education, income, physical attractiveness, or other characteristics. In this way, they reduce their bias and self-interest. Last, unanimity of acceptance is the requirement that all agree to the contract before it goes into effect. Rawls hoped this justice theory would provide a minimum guarantee of rights and liberties for everyone, because no one would know, until the veil was lifted, whether they were male, female, rich, poor, tall, short, intelligent, a minority, Roman Catholic, disabled, a veteran, and so on.

The five procedural steps, or “conjectures,” are (1) entering into the contract, (2) agreeing unanimously to the contract, (3) including basic conditions in the contract such as freedom of speech, (4) maximizing the welfare of the most disadvantaged persons, and (5) ensuring the stability of the contract.

These steps create a system of justice that Rawls believed gave fairness its proper place above utility and the bottom line. The steps also supported his belief in people’s instinctual drive for fairness and equitable treatment. Perhaps this is best seen in an educational setting, for example, the university. By matriculating, students enter into a contract that includes basic freedoms such as assembly and speech. Students at a disadvantage (e.g., those burdened with loans, jobs, or other financial constraints) are accommodated as well as possible. The contract between the university and students has proven to be stable over time, from generation to generation. This same procedure applies on a micro level to the experience in the classroom between an individual teacher and students. Over the past several decades—for better or worse—the course syllabus has assumed the role of a written contract expressing this relationship.

Rawls gave an example of what he called “pure procedural justice” in which a cake is shared among several people.

By what agreement shall the cake be divided? Rawls determined that the best way to divide the cake is to have the person slicing the cake take the last piece. This will ensure that everyone gets an equal amount. What is important is an independent standard to determine what is just and a procedure for implementing it.

The Problem of Redistribution

Part of Rawls’s critique of utilitarianism is that its utility calculus can lead to tyranny. If we define pleasure as that which is popular, the minority can suffer in terrible ways and the majority become mere numbers. This became clear in Mills’s attempt to humanize Bentham’s calculus. But Mills’s harm principle had just as bad an effect, for the opposite reason. It did not require anyone to give up anything if it had to be done through coercion or force. To extend Rawls’s cake example, if one person owned a bakery and another were starving, like Jean Valjean’s sister in Les Misérables, utilitarianism would force the baker to give up what he had to satisfy the starving person without taking into account whether the baker had greater debts, a sick spouse requiring medical treatment, or a child with educational loans; in other words, the context of the situation matters, as opposed to just the consequences. However, Mill’s utilitarianism, adhering to the harm principle, would leave the starving person to his or her own devices. At least he or she would have one slice of cake. This was the problem of distribution and redistribution that Rawls hoped to solve, not by calculating pleasure and pain, profit and loss, but by applying fairness as a normative value that would benefit individuals and society.

The problem with this approach is that justice theory is a radical, egalitarian form of liberalism in which redistribution of material goods and services occurs without regard for historical context or the presumption many share that it inherently is wrong to take the property legally acquired by one and distribute it to another. Rawls has been criticized for promoting the same kind of coercion that can exist in utilitarianism but on the basis of justice rather than pleasure. Justice on a societal level would guarantee housing, education, medical treatment, food, and the basic necessities of life for everyone. Yet, as recent political campaigns have shown, the question of who will pay for these guaranteed goods and services through taxes is a contentious one. These are not merely fiscal and political issues; they are philosophical ones requiring us to answer questions of logic and, especially in the case of justice theory, fairness. And, naturally, we must ask, what is fair?

Rawls’s principles and steps assume that the way in which the redistribution of goods and services occurs would be agreed upon by people in the community to avoid any fairness issues. But questions remain. For one, Rawls’s justice, like the iconic depiction, is blind and cannot see the circumstances in which goods and services are distributed. Second, we may question whether a notion of fairness is really innate. Third, despite the claim that justice theory is not consequentialist (meaning outcomes are not the only thing that matters), there is a coercive aspect to Rawls’s justice once the contract is in force, replacing utility with mandated fairness. Fourth, is this the kind of system in which people thrive and prosper, or, by focusing on the worst off, are initiative, innovation, and creativity dampened on the part of everyone else? Perhaps the most compelling critic of Rawls in this regard was his colleague at Harvard University, Robert Nozick (1938–2002), who wrote A Theory of Entitlement (1974) as a direct rebuttal of Rawlsian justice theory.

Nozick argued that the power of the state may never ethically be used to deprive someone of property he or she has legally obtained or inherited in order to distribute it to others who are in need of it.

Still, one of the advantages of justice theory over the other ethical systems presented in this chapter is its emphasis on method as opposed to content. The system runs on a methodology or process for arriving at truth through the underlying value of fairness. Again, in this sense it is similar to utilitarianism, but, by requiring unanimity, it avoids the extremes of Bentham’s and Mill’s versions. As a method in ethics, it can be applied in a variety of ways and in multiple disciplines, because it can be adapted to just about any value-laden content. Of course, this raises the question of content versus method in ethics, especially because ethics has been defined as a set of cultural norms based on agreed-upon values. Method may be most effective in determining what those underlying values are, rather than how they are implemented.

Justice in Business

Although no ethical framework is perfect or fits a particular era completely, Rawls’s justice theory has distinct advantages when applied to business in the twenty-first century. First, as businesses become interdependent and globalized, they must pay more attention to quality control, human resources, and leadership in diverse settings. What will give greater legitimacy to an organization in these areas than fairness? Fairness is a value that is cross-cultural, embraced by different social groups, and understood by nearly everyone. However, what is considered fair depends on a variety of factors, including underlying values and individual characteristics like personality. For instance, not everyone agrees on whether or how diversity ought to be achieved. Neither is there consensus about affirmative action or the redistribution of resources or income. What is fair to some may be supremely unfair to others. This presents an opportunity for engaged debate and participation among the members of Rawls’s community.

Second, as we saw earlier, justice theory provides a method for attaining fairness, which could make it a practical and valuable part of training at all levels of a company. The fact that its content—justice and fairness—is more accessible to contemporary people than Confucian virtue ethics and more flexible than Kant’s categorical imperative makes it an effective way of dealing with stakeholders and organizational culture.

Justice theory may also provide a seamless way of engaging in corporate social responsibility outwardly and employee development inwardly. Fairness as a corporate doctrine can be applied to all stakeholders and define a culture of trust and openness, with all the corresponding benefits, in marketing, advertising, board development, client relations, and so on. It is also an effective way of integrating business ethics into the organization so ethics is no longer seen as the responsibility solely of the compliance department or legal team. Site leaders and middle managers understand fairness; employees probably even more so, because they are more directly affected by the lack of it. Fairness, then, is as much part of the job as it is an ongoing process of an ethics system. It no doubt makes for a happier and more productive workforce. An organization dedicated to it can also play a greater role in civic life and the political process, which, in turn, helps everyone.

Stakeholder Relationships

Many individuals and groups inside and outside a business have an interest in the way it brings products or services to market to turn a profit. These stakeholders include customers, clients, employees, shareholders, communities, the environment, the government, and the media (traditional and social), among others. All stakeholders should be considered essential to a business, but not all have equal priority. Different groups of stakeholders carry different weights with decision makers in companies and assert varying levels of interest and influence. As we examine their roles, consider how an organization benefits by working with its stakeholders and how it may benefit from encouraging stakeholders to work together to promote their mutual interests.

What are the roles of an organization’s many stakeholders? We begin with the internal stakeholders. The board of directors—in a company large enough to have one—is responsible for defining and evaluating the ongoing mission of a business after its founding. It broadly oversees decisions about the mission and direction of the business, the products or services offered, the markets in which the business will operate, and salary and benefits for the senior officers of the organization. The board also sets goals for income and profitability. Its most important function is to select and hire the chief executive officer (CEO) or president. The CEO is usually the only employee who reports directly to the board of directors, and he or she is charged with implementing the policies the board sets and consulting with them on significant issues pertaining to the company, such as a dramatic shift in products or services offered or discussions to acquire—or be acquired by—another firm.

In turn, the CEO hires executives to lead initiatives and carry out procedures in the various functional areas of the business, such as finance, sales and marketing, public relations, manufacturing, quality control, human resources (sometimes called human capital), accounting, and legal compliance. Employees in these areas are internal stakeholders in the success of both their division and the larger corporation. Some interact with the outside environment in which the business operates and serve as contact points for external stakeholders, such as media and government, as well.

In terms of external stakeholders for a business, customers certainly are an essential group. They need to be able to trust that products and services are backed by the integrity of the company. They also provide reviews, positive or negative, and referrals. Customers’ perceptions of the business matter, too. Those who learn that a business is not treating employees fairly, for instance, may reconsider their loyalty or even boycott the business to try to influence change in the organization. Stakeholder relationships, good and bad, can have compound effects, particularly when social media can spread word of unethical behavior quickly and widely.

Key external stakeholders are usually those outside of the organization who most directly influence a business’s bottom line and hold power over the business. Besides customers and clients, suppliers have a great deal of influence and command a great deal of attention from businesses of all sizes. Governments hold power through regulatory bodies, from federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency to the local planning and zoning boards of the communities in which businesses exist. These latter groups often exercise influence over the physical spaces where businesses work and try to grow ((Figure)).

Businesses are responsible to their stakeholders. Every purchase of a product or a service carries with it a sort of promise. Buyers promise that their money or credit is good, and businesses promise a level of quality that will deliver what is advertised. The relationship can quickly get more complex, though. Stakeholders also may demand that the businesses they patronize give back to the local community or protect the global environment while developing their products or providing services. Employees may demand a certain level of remuneration for their work. Governments demand that companies comply with laws, and buyers in business-to-business exchanges (B2B, in business jargon) demand not only high-quality products and services but on-time delivery and responsive maintenance and service should something go wrong. Meeting core obligations to stakeholders is primarily about delivering good products and services, but it is also about communicating and preparing for potential problems, whether from within the company or from external circumstances like a natural disaster.

Ethical Responsibilities Often Extend Beyond Legal Requirements

We have seen that stakeholders include the people and entities invested in and influential in the success of an organization. It is also true that stakeholders can have multiple, and simultaneous, roles. For example, an employee can also be a customer and a stockholder.

Any transaction between a stakeholder and a business organization may appear finite. For instance, after you purchase something from a store you leave and go home. But your relationship with the store probably continues. You might want to repurchase the item or ask a question about a warranty. The store may have collected future marketing data about you and your purchases through its customer loyalty program or your use of a credit card.

Samsung, based in South Korea, is a large, multinational corporation that makes a variety of products, including household appliances such as washers and dryers. When Samsung’s washers developed a problem with the spin cycle in 2017, the company warned customers that the machines could become unbalanced and tip over, and that children should be kept away. The problem persisted, however, and Samsung’s responsibility and legal exposure increased. The eventual fix was to offer all owners of the particular washer model a full refund even if the customer did not have a complaint, and to offer free pick up of the machine as well. The recall covered almost three million washers, which ranged in price from $450 to $1500. By choosing to spend billions to rectify the problem, Samsung limited its legal exposure to potential lawsuits, settlement of which would likely have far exceeded the refunds it paid. This example demonstrates the weight of the implicit social contract between a company and its stakeholders and the potential impact on the bottom line if that contract is broken.

When a product does not live up to its maker’s claims for whatever reason, the manufacturer needs to correct the problem to retain or regain customers’ trust. Without this trust, the interdependence between the company and its stakeholders can fail. By choosing to recognize and repay its customer stakeholders, Samsung acted at an ethical maximum, taking the strongest possible action to behave ethically in a given situation. An ethical minimum, or the least a company might do that complies with the law, would have been to offer the warning and nothing more. This may have been a defensible position in court, but the warning might not have reached all purchasers of the defective machine and many children could have been hurt.

Each case of a faulty product or poorly delivered service is different. If laws reach above a minimum standard, they can grow cumbersome and impede business growth. If businesses adhere only to laws and ethical minimums, however, they can develop poor reputations and people can be harmed. The ethically minimal course of action is not illegal or necessarily unethical, but the company choosing it will have failed to recognize the value of its customers.

The law only partly captures the ethical obligations firms owe their stakeholders. One way many companies go beyond the legally required minimum as employers is to offer lavish amenities—that is, resources made available to employees in addition to wages, salary, and other standard benefits. They include such offerings as on-site exercise rooms and other services, company discounts, complimentary or subsidized snacks or meals, and the opportunity to buy stock in the company at a discounted price. Astute business leaders see the increased costs of amenities as an investment in retaining employees as long-term stakeholders. Stakeholder loyalty within and outside the firm is essential in sustaining any business venture, no matter how small or large.

One challenge for any organization’s managers is that not all stakeholders agree on where the company should strive to land when it chooses between ethical minimums and maximums. Take stockholders, for example. Logically, most stockholders are interested in maximizing the return on their investment in the firm, which earns profit for them in the form of dividends. Lynn Stout, late Professor of Law at Cornell Law School, described the role of shareholder in this way:

“Shareholders as a class want companies to be able to treat their stakeholders well, because this encourages employee and customer loyalty . . . Yet individual shareholders can profit from pushing boards to exploit committed stakeholders—say, by threatening to outsource jobs unless employees agree to lower wages, or refusing to support products customers have come to rely on unless they buy expensive new products as well. In the long run, such corporate opportunism makes it difficult for companies to attract employee and customer loyalty in the first place.”

Essential to Stout’s point is that shareholders do not necessarily behave as a class. Some will want to maximize their investment even at a cost to other stakeholders. Some may want to extend beyond the legal minimum and seek a long-term perspective on profit maximization, demanding better treatment of stakeholders to maximize future potential value and to do more good than harm.

In the long run, stakeholder welfare must be kept at the heart of each company’s business operations for these significant, twin reasons: It is the right thing to do and it is good for business. Still, if managers need additional incentive to act on the basis of policies that benefit stakeholders, it is useful to recall that stakeholders who believe their interests have been ignored will readily make their displeasure known, both to company management and to the much wider community of social media.

The Ethical Basis of Stakeholders’ Claims

Stakeholder claims vary in their significance for a firm. According to Donaldson and Preston,

there are three theoretical approaches to considering stakeholder claims: a descriptive approach, an instrumental approach, and a normative approach. The descriptive approach sees the company as composed of various stakeholder groups, each with its own interests. These interests impinge on the company to a greater or lesser degree; thus, the main point of the descriptive approach is to develop the most accurate model and act on it in ways that weigh and balance these interests as fairly as possible. The instrumental approach connects stakeholder management and financial outcomes, proposing that appropriate management of stakeholder interests is important and useful because it contributes to a positive bottom line.

The normative approach considers stakeholders as ends in themselves rather than simply as means to achieve better financial results. According to Donaldson and Preston, in the normative approach “the interests of all stakeholders are of intrinsic value. That is, each group of stakeholders merits consideration for its own sake and not merely because of its ability to further the interests of some other group, such as the shareowners.”

This approach is the one that most appropriately represents ethical stakeholder theory, according to Donaldson and Preston, and it places an objective consideration of all stakeholders’ interests ahead of fiscal considerations alone.

We can also view these three approaches to stakeholders as occupying levels of increasing comprehensiveness. At the lowest level is the descriptive approach, which merely sets the stage for consideration of stakeholder claims and concerns. The instrumental aspect combines a consideration for profit along with other stakeholder concerns and attempts to balance these interests with particular attention to the way the company and its shareholders might be affected. The normative approach takes the most comprehensive view of the organization and its stakeholders, putting the focus squarely on stakeholders. Although Donaldson and Preston stress that the descriptive and instrumental approaches are integral to stakeholder theory, they contend that the fundamental basis of stakeholder theory is normative.

Of course, these are theoretical approaches, and the extent to which any of them is implemented in a given company will vary. But unfortunately, the decision to disconnect from stakeholders is both real and expensive for a corporation. A 2005 survey of customers of 362 companies is demonstrative: “Only 8% of customers described their experience as ‘superior.’ However, 80% of the companies surveyed believe that the experience they have been providing is indeed superior.”

Another study found significant links between levels of customer satisfaction and a firm’s performance, including rates of retention, overall revenue, and stock price.

Enlightened companies spend time and resources testing their stakeholders’ concerns and eliciting their feedback while there is time to incorporate it into management decisions.

A classic example of negative consumer reaction is the response that met Ford Motor Company’s 1958 introduction of the Edsel ((Figure)). Ford had done extensive research to create a luxury family sedan aimed at an upper-income segment of the market then dominated by Buick, Oldsmobile, and Chrysler. However, the market did not identify Ford products with high status, and the Edsel did not last three years in the marketplace. Ford failed to serve the investors, suppliers, and employees who depended on the company for their livelihoods. Of course, the corporation survived that failure, perhaps because it learned the lessons of stakeholder management the hard way.

Entertainers too (as well as their clubs, venues, and studios) are sensitive to the views of their stakeholders—that is, fans and the consuming public as a whole. Scarlett Johansson recently signed on to play the role of Dante “Tex” Gill in a biographical film (or “biopic”). Gill had been identified as female at birth but spent much of his professional career self-identifying as male. When the casting was announced in July 2018, it provoked a controversy among transgender rights groups, and within a few days, Johansson announced she had withdrawn from the role.

“In light of recent ethical questions raised surrounding my casting as Dante Tex Gill, I have decided to respectfully withdraw my participation in the project. . . . While I would have loved the opportunity to bring Dante’s story and transition to life, I understand why many feel he should be portrayed by a transgender person, and I am thankful that this casting debate, albeit controversial, has sparked a larger conversation about diversity and representation in film,” she said.

Defining Stakeholder Categories

To better understand stakeholder theory and, ultimately, manage stakeholder claims and expectations, it may be helpful to take a closer look at categories of stakeholders. One way to categorize stakeholders is by defining their impact. For example, regulatory stakeholders including stockholders, legislatures, government regulators, and boards of directors are enabling stakeholders because they permit the firm to function. Normative stakeholders such as competitors and peers influence the norms or informal rules of the industry; functional stakeholders are those who influence inputs, such as suppliers, employees, and unions, and those influencing outputs such as customers, distributors, and retailers. Finally, diffused stakeholders include other organizations such as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), voters, and mass media organizations with less direct relationships but potential for meaningful impacts on firms ((Figure)).

As the (Figure) shows, enabling and functional stakeholders are those active in design, production, and marketing. They provide input for the products or services the organization distributes in the form of output. Companies should identify all the stakeholders shown in the figure and consider how they are linked to the firm. Although the diffused linkage stakeholders will vary according to place and time, the enabling, functional, and normative linkage stakeholders are constant, because they are integral to the operation of the firm. Stakeholders, in turn, can exert some control and authority by serving on the board of directors, by exercising their power as purchasers, by being elected to public office, or by joining employees’ unions.

In many cases, if one stakeholder effects a change in the firm, other stakeholders will be affected. For example, if an NGO raises concerns about unequal pay of laborers on a rubber plantation that provides raw materials for gasket makers, the supplier may be forced to equalize pay, incurring additional expense. The supplier has taken the ethical action, but ultimately the cost is likely passed through the supply chain to the end user, the retail purchaser at the local car dealer. The supplier could also have absorbed the additional cost, diminishing the bottom line and reducing returns for stockholders, who may withdraw their investment from the company. Although this model of stakeholder relationships is complex, it is useful in understanding the impact of each individual group on the organization as a whole.

James E. Grunig, now professor emeritus at University of Maryland, and Todd Hunt, who together developed the organizational linkage model in (Figure), looked at these relationships through the lens of four “publics” or cohorts: the nonpublic, the latent, the aware, and the active. These publics are distinguished by their degree of awareness of a problem and ability to do something about it. In the nonpublic cohort, no problem is recognized or exists. For the latent public, a problem is there but the public does not recognize it. The aware public recognizes that a problem exists. The active public is aware of the problem and organizes to respond to it. These categories help the organization design its message about a problem and decide how to communicate. Herein lies the ethical significance. If an organization is aware of a problem and the public is not, the organization has an opportunity to communicate and guide the public in recognizing and dealing with it, as the example of Johnson & Johnson’s Tylenol product in the following box illustrates.

On the other hand, a company might try to manage a problem by covering it up or denying it. For example, Volkswagen had data that showed its diesel engine’s emissions exceeded U.S. pollution standards. Rather than redesign the engine, Volkswagen engineers installed a unit in each car to interpret the emissions as if they met Environmental Protection Agency standards. When the fraud was discovered, Volkswagen was required to buy back millions of cars. As of September 2017, the company had incurred fines and expenses in excess of $30 billion, and some employees had gone to jail. Such damage is bad enough, but loss of reputation and the trust of consumers and stockholders has hurt the company’s value and share price.

Volkswagen’s management of stakeholder relationships was poor and extremely expensive. Once-loyal stakeholders became part of an aware and active public—a group of people united by a common problem and organized for satisfaction, sometimes demanding compensation.

A challenge for business leaders is to assign appropriate weights to stakeholder claims on their companies in an ethical manner. This task is even more difficult because a claim is not necessarily a formal process. “Essentially, stakeholders ‘want something’ from an organization. Some want . . . to influence what the organization does . . . and others are, or potentially could be, concerned with the way they are affected by the organization.”

If a stakeholder has its own identity or voice, or if members of a stakeholder group are many, the claim can be clear and direct, such as in the case of a union negotiating for better pay and benefits, or a community trying to lure a corporation to open operations there. Think of the enormous effort communities around the world make to try to get the Olympics or World Cup organizers to bring the competition to their locale. In spite of significant investment and debt, these communities see a real advantage to their local economy.

Many stakeholder claims are indirect, or “voiceless,” due perhaps to their representing relatively few individuals relative to the size and power of the organization and the time required to evoke a response from a large, bureaucratic company. If you have ever had a problem with a cable television or satellite company, you can immediately understand this stakeholder relationship, because it is so difficult to find someone with enough authority to make a decision on behalf of the company. Some companies count on individuals’ growing frustrated and giving up on the claim. An indirect stakeholder claim might also be one that affects future generations, such as concerns about air and water pollution. For example, University of Southern California law professor Christopher D. Stone introduced in 1972 what was then a radical concept for the law in the United States, that the environment itself is entitled to legal standing in the courts. If this were so, then the environment might also be eligible for certain protections under the law. Appearing at the dawn of increasing social awareness of ecologic concerns, Stone’s influential law review article “Should Trees Have Standing?” gave many environmentalists a new legal philosophy to harness in defense of the natural world.

Stakeholder Prioritization

First, it may help to speak to the expectations that any stakeholders may have of a particular business or institution. It depends on particular stakeholders, of course, but we can safely say that all stakeholders expect a form of satisfaction from an organization. If these stakeholders are shareholders (stockowners), then they generally wish to see a high return on their purchase of company shares. If, on the other hand, they are employees, they typically hope for interesting tasks, a safe work environment, job security, and rewarding pay and benefits. If, yet again, the stakeholders are members of the community surrounding a business, they usually wish that the company not harm the physical environment or degrade the quality of life within it.

So the task confronting an organization’s management begins with understanding these multiple and sometimes conflicting expectations and ethically deciding which stakeholders to focus on and in what sequence, if not all stakeholders cannot be addressed simultaneously, that is, stakeholder prioritization. It helps to actively gather information about all key stakeholders and their claims. First, managers must establish that an individual with a concern is a member of a stakeholder group. For example, a brand may attract hundreds or thousands of mentions on Twitter each day. Which ones should be taken seriously as representative of key stakeholders? Brand managers look for patterns of communication and for context when deciding whether to engage with customers in the open expanses of social media platforms.

After establishing that a key stakeholder group is being represented, the manager should identify what the company needs from the stakeholder. This simply helps clarify the relationship. If nothing is needed immediately or for the foreseeable future, this does not mean the stakeholder group does not matter, but it can be a good indication that the stakeholder need not be prioritized at the moment.

Note that managers are often considering these questions in real time, usually with limited resources and power, and that circumstances can change in a matter of moments. In one sense, all representatives of a company are constantly practicing stakeholder prioritization. It need not be a formal process. At times, it is a question of which supplier should be praised or prodded or which customer has a larger order to fill or a special request that might be met. What matters is establishing that someone is a stakeholder, that the concern is currently important, and that the relationship matters for the growth of the business.

If the firm cannot survive without this particular stakeholder or replace him or her relatively easily, then such a person should have priority over other stakeholders who do not meet this criterion. Key suppliers, lucrative or steady customers, and influential regulators must all be attended to but not necessarily capitulated to. For example, a local state legislator representing the district where a business is located may be urging the legislature to raise business taxes to generate more revenue for the state. By him- or herself, the legislator may not have sufficient political clout to persuade the legislature to raise taxes. Yet wise business leaders will not ignore such a representative and will engage in dialogue with him or her. The legislator may eventually be able to win others over to the cause, so it behooves perceptive management to establish a working relationship with him or her.

Not every stakeholder can command constant attention, and no firm has unlimited time or resources, so in one sense, this prioritizing is simply the business of management. Combine the inherent priority of the stakeholder relationship with the level of exigency, that is, the level of urgency of a stakeholder claim, to arrive at a decision about where to begin focusing resources and efforts.

Stakeholder prioritization will also vary based on time and circumstance. For example, a large retailer facing aggressive new competitors must prioritize customer service and value. With Amazon acquiring Whole Foods and drastically cutting prices, the grocery chain’s customer base may very well grow because prices could become more attractive while the perception of high quality may persist. Potential customers may no longer need to economize by shopping elsewhere.

Whole Foods’ competitors, on the other hand, must now prioritize customer service, whereas before they could compete on price alone. Whole Foods can become a serious competitor to discount grocery stores like ALDI and Walmart.

Another way to prioritize stakeholder relationships is with a matrix of their power and interest. As (Figure) shows, a stakeholder group can be weighted on the basis of its influence (or power) over and interest in its relationship to the firm. A stakeholder with a high level of both power and interest is a key stakeholder. If this type of stakeholder group encounters a problem, its priority rises.

On the supplier side, a small farmer or seasonal supplier could fall in the low-power, low-interest category, particularly if that farmer were selling various retailers produce from his or her fields. However, if that same farmer could connect to a huge purveyor like Kroger, he or she could sell this giant customer its entire crop. This relationship places the farmer in the low-power, high-interest category, meaning he or she will most likely have to make price adjustments to make the sale.

The model’s focus on power reveals a need for any company to carefully cultivate relationships with stakeholders. Not all stakeholders have equal influence with a firm. Still, no organization can blithely ignore any stakeholder without potentially debilitating economic consequences. For example, now that Amazon has acquired Whole Foods and increased the size of the customer stakeholder group, it must also find ways to personalize its communications with this group, because personal service has traditionally been more a hallmark of Whole Foods than of Amazon.

Successful business practice today hinges on the ethical acknowledgement of stakeholder claims. It is the right thing to do. Not only that, it also engenders satisfied stakeholders, whether they be customers, stockowners, employees, or the community in which a firm is located. Naturally, satisfied stakeholders lead to the financial well-being of a company.

Managing Stakeholder Expectations

Stakeholder management does not work if the firm’s prioritizing decisions are based on flawed, inaccurate, or incomplete information. Some tools are available to help. MITRE is a nonprofit research and development consulting firm that helps governments and other large organizations with many stakeholders conduct stakeholder assessment. The MITRE Guide to Stakeholder Assessment and Management lays out a five-step system for stakeholder management.

Overall, MITRE stresses that an organization must sustain trust with its stakeholders through communication efforts. To accomplish this, however, stakeholders must first be clearly identified and then periodically reidentified, because stakeholder cohorts change in size and significance over time. The concerns or claims of stakeholders are identified through data gathering and analysis. Sometimes a firm will conduct surveys or focus groups with customers, suppliers, or other stakeholders. Other times, product usage data will be available as a function of sales figures and marketing data. For software in web and mobile applications, for example, user data may be readily available to show how stakeholders are using the company’s digital services or why they appear to be purchasing its products. Another source of stakeholder data is social media, where firms can monitor topics stakeholders of all types are talking about. What matters is gathering relevant and accurate data and ensuring that key stakeholders are providing it. In the next step, managers present the results of their research to the company’s decision makers or make decisions themselves.

Finally, stakeholders should be informed that their concerns were taken into consideration and that the company will continue to heed them. In other words, the firm should convey to them that they are important.

Because every firm, no matter its mission, ultimately depends on the marketplace, its clients or customers are often high-priority stakeholders. Ethically, the company owes allegiance to customer stakeholders, but it also has an opportunity and perhaps a responsibility to shape their expectations in ways that encourage its growth and allow it to continue to provide for employees, suppliers, distributors, and shareholders.

We should note, too, that nonprofit organizations are beholden, for the most part, to the same rules that apply to for-profits for their sustainability. Nonprofits typically provide a service that is just as dependent on cash flow as is the service or product of a for-profit. A significant difference, of course, is that the client or customer for a nonprofit’s service often is unable to pay for it. Therefore, the necessary cash must come from other sources, often in the form of donations or endowments. Hence, those who give to philanthropies constitute essential stakeholders for these nonprofits and must be acknowledged as such.

Wesley E. Lindahl, who studies and advises nonprofits, notes that philanthropies have an ethical obligation to safeguard the donations that come their way. He likens this to a stewardship, because the monies given to charities are gifts intended for others very much in need of them. So those who manage nonprofits have a special obligation to ensure that these donations are well spent and distributed appropriately.

There are three major components to bringing about change in customer or donor expectations: (1) customer receptivity to a product or service offered by the company, (2) acknowledgement of the gap between customer receptivity and corporate action to reduce it, and (3) a system to bring about and maintain change in customer desires to bring it in line with precisely what the corporation can deliver. One example of firms altering customers’ habits is the evolution of beverage containers. Most soft drinks and other beverages such as beer were once delivered in reusable glass bottles. Customers were motivated to return the bottles by the refund of a minimal cash deposit originally paid at the time of purchase. The bottles had to be thick and sturdy for reuse, which resulted in substantial transportation costs, due to their weight.

To reduce these costs of manufacturing and transportation, manufacturers first redesigned production to be local, and then, when technology allowed, introduced aluminum cans and pull tabs. Eventually, the cardboard carton that held bottles together was replaced by a plastic set of rings to hold aluminum cans together. Now, however, customers and other stakeholders object to the hazard these rings present to wildlife. Some firms have responded by redesigning their packaging yet again. This ongoing process of developing new packaging, listening to feedback, and redesigning the product over time ultimately changed stakeholder behavior and modernized the beverage industry. Stakeholders are essential parts of a cycle of mutual interest and involvement.

The ethical responsibility of a stakeholder is to make known his or her preferences to the companies he or she purchases from or relies on. Such communication can lead to an increased commitment on the part of corporations to improve. To the extent they do so, companies act more ethically in responding to the wishes and needs of their stakeholders.

Corporate Social Responsibility Defined

In recent years, many organizations have embraced corporate social responsibility (CSR), a philosophy (introduced in Why Ethics Matter,) in which the company’s expected actions include not only producing a reliable product, charging a fair price with fair profit margins, and paying a fair wage to employees, but also caring for the environment and acting on other social concerns. Many corporations work on prosocial endeavors and share that information with their customers and the communities where they do business. CSR, when conducted in good faith, is beneficial to corporations and their stakeholders. This is especially true for stakeholders that have typically been given low priority and little voice, such as the natural environment and community members who live near corporate sites and manufacturing facilities.

CSR in its ideal form focuses managers on demonstrating the social good of their new products and endeavors. It can be framed as a response to the backlash corporations face for a long track record of harming environments and communities in their efforts to be more efficient and profitable. Pushback is not new. Charles Dickens wrote about the effects of the coal economy on nineteenth-century England and shaped the way we think about the early industrial revolution. The twentieth-century writer Chinua Achebe, among many others, wrote about colonization and its transformative and often painful effect on African cultures. Rachel Carson first brought public attention to corporation’s chemical poisoning of U.S. waterways in her 1962 book Silent Spring.

Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique (1963) critiqued the way twentieth-century industrialization boxed women into traditional roles and limited their agency. Kate Chopin’s novel The Awakening (1899) and the nineteenth-century novels of Jane Austen had already outlined how limited options were for women despite massive social and economic shifts in the industrializing West. Stakeholder communities left out of or directly harmed by the economic revolution have demanded that they be able to influence corporate and governmental economic practices to benefit more directly from corporate growth as well as entrepreneurship opportunities. The trend to adopt CSR may represent an opportunity for greater engagement and involvement by groups mostly ignored until now by the wave of corporate economic growth reshaping the industrialized world.

CSR and the Environment

Corporations have responded to stakeholder concerns about the environment and sustainability. In 1999, Dow Jones began publishing an annual list of companies for which sustainability was important. Sustainability is the practice of preserving resources and operating in a way that is ecologically responsible in the long term.

The Dow Jones Sustainability Indices “serve as benchmarks for investors who integrate sustainability considerations into their portfolios.”

There is a growing awareness that human actions can, and do, harm the environment. Destruction of the environment can ultimately lead to reduction of resources, declining business opportunities, and lowered quality of life. Enlightened business stakeholders realize that profit is only one positive effect of business operations. In addition to safeguarding the environment, other ethical contributions that stakeholders could lobby corporate management to make include establishing schools and health clinics in impoverished neighborhoods and endowing worthwhile philanthropies in the communities where companies have a presence.

Other stakeholders, such as state governments, NGOs, citizen groups, and political action committees in the United States apply social and legal pressure on businesses to improve their environmental practices. For example, the state of California in 2015 enacted a set of laws, referred to as the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act, which requires firms to report on the working conditions of the employees of their suppliers. The law requires only disclosures, but the added transparency is a step toward holding U.S. and other multinational corporations responsible for what goes on before their products appear in shiny packages in stores. The legislators who wrote California’s Supply Chains Act recognize that consumer stakeholders are likely to bring pressure to bear on companies found to use slave labor in their supply chains, so forcing disclosure can bring about change because corporations would rather adjust their relationships with supply-chain stakeholders than risk alienating massive numbers of customers.

As instances of this type of pressure on corporations increase around the world, stakeholder groups become simultaneously less isolated and more powerful. Firms need customers. Customers need employment, and the state needs taxes just as firms need resources. All stakeholders exist in an interdependent network of relationships, and what is most needed is a sustainable system that enables all types of key stakeholders to establish and apply influence.

People, Planet, Profit: The Triple Bottom Line

How can corporations and their stakeholders measure some of the effects of CSR programs? The triple bottom line (TBL) offers a way. TBL is a measure described in 1994 by John Elkington, a British business consultant ((Figure)), and it forces us to reconsider the very concept of the “bottom line.” Most businesses, and most consumers for that matter, think of the bottom line as a shorthand expression of their financial well-being. Are they making a profit, staying solvent, or falling into debt? That is the customary bottom line, but Elkington suggests that businesses need to consider not just one but rather three measures of their true bottom line: the economic and also the social and environmental results of their actions. The social and environmental impacts of doing business, called people and planet in the TBL, are the externalities of their operations that companies must take into account.

The TBL concept recognizes that external stakeholders consider it a corporation’s responsibility to go beyond making money. If increasing wealth damages the environment or makes people sick, society demands that the corporation revise its methods or leave the community. Society, businesses, and governments have realized that all stakeholders have to work for the common good. When they are successful at acting in a socially responsible way, corporations will and should claim credit. In acting according to the TBL model and promoting such acts, many corporations have reinvested their efforts and their profits in ways that can ultimately lead to the development of a sustainable economic system.

CSR as Public Relations Tool

On the other hand, for some, CSR is nothing more than an opportunity for publicity as a firm tries to look good through various environmentally or socially friendly initiatives without making systemic changes that will have long-term positive effects. Carrying out superficial CSR efforts that merely cover up systemic ethics problems in this inauthentic way (especially as it applies to the environment), and acting simply for the sake of public relations is called greenwashing. To truly understand a company’s approach toward the environment, we need to do more than blindly accept the words on its website or its advertising.

Coca-Cola provides another example of practices some would identify as greenwashing. The company states the following on its website:

“Engaging our diverse stakeholders in long-term dialogue provides important input that informs our decision making, and helps us continuously improve and make progress toward our 2020 sustainability goals . . . We are committed to ongoing stakeholder engagement as a core component of our business and sustainability strategies, our annual reporting process, and our activities around the world. As active members of the communities where we live and work, we want to strengthen the fabric of our communities so that we can prosper together.”

Let us take a close look at this statement. “Engaging stakeholders in long-term dialogue” appears to describe an ongoing and reciprocal relationship that helps improvement be continuous. Commitment to “stakeholder engagement as a core component of business and sustainability strategies” appears to focus the company on the requirement to conduct clear, honest, transparent reporting.

Currently 20 percent of the people on Earth consume a Coca-Cola product each day, meaning a very large portion of the global population belongs to the company’s consumer stakeholder group. Depending on the process and location, it is estimated that it takes more than three liters of water to produce a liter of Coke. Each day, therefore, millions of liters of water are removed from the Earth to make Coke products, so the company’s water footprint can endanger the water supplies of both employee and neighbor stakeholders. For example, in Chiapas, Mexico, the Coca-Cola bottling plant consumes more than one billion liters of water daily, but only about half the population has running water.

Mexico leads the world in per capita consumption of Coke products.

If consumers are aware only of Coca-Cola’s advertising campaigns and corporate public relations writings online, they will miss the very real concerns about water security associated with it and other corporations producing beverages in similar fashion. Thus it requires interest on the part of stakeholders to continue to drive real CSR practices and to differentiate true CSR efforts from greenwashing.

The Ultimate Stakeholder Benefit

CSR used in good faith has the potential to reshape the orientation of multinational corporations to their stakeholders. By positioning themselves as stakeholders in a broader global community, conscientious corporations can be exemplary organizations. They can demonstrate interest and influence on a global scale and improve the way the manufacture of goods and delivery of services serve the local and global environment. They can return to communities as much as they extract and foster automatic financial reinvestment so that people willing and able to work for them can afford not only the necessities but a chance to pursue happiness.

In return, global corporations will have sustainable business models that look beyond short-term growth forecasts. They will have a method of operating and a framework for thinking about sustained growth with stakeholders and as stakeholders. Ethical stakeholder relationships systematically grow wealth and opportunity in dynamic fashion. Without them, the global consumer economy may fail. On an alternate and ethical path of prosperity, today’s supplier is a consumer in the next generation and Earth is still inhabitable after many generations of dynamic change and continued global growth.

The Advantages of Corporate Status

The concept of limited liability means that the owners (shareholders or stockholders) of corporations, as well as directors and managers, are protected by laws stating that in most circumstances, their losses in case of business failure cannot exceed the amount they paid for their shares of ownership ((Figure)). The same protection applies to owners of some other business entities such as limited liability companies (LLCs). An LLC is similar to a corporation in that owners have limited liability; however, it is organized and managed more like a partnership. For purposes of granting owners the protection of limited liability, several types of entities are possible within each state, including a corporation, an LLC, a limited liability partnership, and a limited partnership.

Without state incorporation laws, business owners would be subject to personal liability for business losses, which could create several disadvantages. Ownership would be riskier, so owners could have more difficulty selling their ownership interests. They could also be subject to a pro rata share of income taxes. These types of personal financial liability could limit the ability of businesses to raise capital by selling stock. Limited liability, by reducing the amount a shareholder can lose from investing in a corporation by buying its stock, increases the investment’s attractiveness to potential new shareholders. Ultimately, corporate status increases both the potential number of willing investors and the amount of capital they are likely to invest. After all, would you be willing to invest your money in a business if you knew not only that you could lose the capital you invested, but also that you could be sued personally for any and all debts of the business?

Corporate status is conferred upon a business by state law (statute) when a state issues the business a charter of incorporation. The protective shield of corporate status enables businesses to socialize their losses in a way that traditional proprietorships and partnerships are not able to do. Socializing a loss is a means to amortize it or spread it out over society in general, so the owners do not absorb it individually. Amortization is similar to the idea behind insurance, in which many people bear a small share in a loss, rather than one or a few people bearing all of it. Therefore, it is accurate to say that society enables corporations to exist, both by passing laws that create them and by limiting the financial risk exposure of their owners. Since our society grants for-profit businesses the right to incorporate and make unlimited profits with limited liability, a reasonable person could conclude that corporations owe a debt to society in return. Corporations’ quid pro quo—a Latin term meaning this for that—is acceptance of corporate social responsibility, to benefit the many stakeholders to whom corporations may owe a duty, including customers, the community, the environment, employees, media, and the government ((Figure)).

Balancing the Many Responsibilities of a Corporation

A longstanding ethical debate about corporate social responsibility asks whether, in fact, a corporation owes a duty to society or only to its shareholders. The line of important court cases shaping this issue spans almost a century and includes a series of landmark cases involving the Ford Motor Company, the Wrigley Company, and Hobby Lobby.

In Dodge v. Ford Motor Company (1919), the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in favor of shareholder primacy, saying that founder Henry Ford must operate the Ford Motor Company primarily in the profit-maximizing interests of its shareholders.

In the traditional corporate model, a corporation earns revenue and, after deducting expenses, distributes the profits to shareholders in the form of dividends. Ford had announced that his company would stop paying big dividends to shareholders and instead would use its profits to achieve several other goals, including improving product quality, expanding company facilities, and perhaps most surprisingly, lowering prices. Shareholders then sued Ford, asking the court to order Ford Motor Company to continue allocating the lion’s share of profits to high dividend payments. (It is ironic that the named shareholders who sued Ford were the Dodge brothers, former Ford suppliers who had recently started their own car company.)

At the trial, Ford ((Figure)) testified that he believed his company was sufficiently profitable to consider its broader obligation and engage in activities to benefit the public, including its workers and customers. This was a unique position for the founder and primary owner of a large corporation to take in the early twentieth century. During the rise of capitalism in the United States, most owners sought only to maximize profits, because that was the primary basis of their ability to attract capital and to reinvest in the company. Most investors were interested in a healthy return on their investment, rather than any type of social good. Shareholders contended that the concern Ford expressed for his workers and customers was both improper and illegal. The court agreed, and Ford was forced to abandon his managerial goal of balancing profits and realizing broader social goals.

Ironically, in the same case, the court upheld the validity of a doctrine known as the business judgment rule, a common-law principle stating that officers, directors, and managers of a corporation are not liable for losses incurred when the evidence demonstrates that decisions were reasonable and made in good faith, which gives corporate management latitude in deciding how to run the company.

Essentially, the business judgment rule holds that a court will not second-guess the decisions of a company’s managers or directors.

The legality and appropriateness of social responsibility as a business policy have followed a long and winding road since 1919. In the 1950s and 1960s, for example, some state courts rejected the shareholder primacy doctrine, instead ruling that a broad interpretation of the business judgment rule allowed managers discretion when it came to allocating company assets, including using them for programs demonstrating social awareness.

In 1968, in a highly publicized case, the court ruled that the board of directors of the Wrigley Company, of baseball and chewing gum fame, had a significant amount of discretion in determining how to balance the interests of stakeholders.

The case of Shlensky v. Wrigley (1968) revolved around William Wrigley Jr.’s ownership of the Chicago Cubs. The baseball team had steadfastly refused to install the lights necessary for playing night games at Wrigley Field, even though every other stadium in major league baseball had lights. Instead, the Cubs had respected the local community’s belief that night baseball games and their associated lights would negatively affect the surrounding neighborhood, creating more opportunities for crime. In the view of some investors, however, the Cubs’ decision was depressing profits for shareholders. The shareholders brought a challenge against the Wrigley Company, but the Cubs’ owners won the case.

The Wrigley case represented a shift from the idea that corporations should pursue only the maximization of shareholder value, as had been held in the Ford Motor Company case.

As a follow-up to this case, lights were finally installed at Wrigley Field in 1988, but only after the owner, William Wrigley III, had sold the team (in 1981) to the Tribune Company, a large media conglomerate that fought for six years to install lights. However, the case stands as precedent for the ability of management to balance various interests and profits when making decisions.

Dodge v. Ford (1919) and Shlensky v. Wrigley (1968) established the dynamic nature of the debate over the shareholder primacy doctrine and indicated a shift in both legal thought and precedent toward allowing management greater latitude in deciding how to best manage a corporation. A more recent decision, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), demonstrated what some may consider the double-edged sword of this latitude.

In a 5–4 decision in favor of Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court ruled that some corporations (those that are closely held by a few shareholders) can object on ethical, moral, or religious grounds to the Affordable Care Act’s rule that health insurance policies must cover various forms of contraception; such companies can elect not to offer such coverage.

The majority opinion in the case was written by Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy. In essence, the Court ruled that business owners could place their personal values first and follow their own agenda. The case received a great deal of publicity, some of it quite negative. Essentially, the Court held in this case that “corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else,”

similar to the ruling in the Chicago Cubs/Wrigley Field case.

The decision was a victory for the family that owns Hobby Lobby and has been praised by some and criticized by others for expanding the rights of corporate owners. Some analysts believe it represents more than just an expansion of management prerogative and enlarges the right of corporations to be treated as a “person.” The Hobby Lobby case can be interpreted to mean the people who control corporations (owners and/or management) may act on their own values in a way that might well be inconsistent with the interests of employees and other minority shareholders. In the majority decision, Alito wrote, “A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends. When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people.”

Hobby Lobby is primarily owned by one family, and Alito’s comments seem to suggest that another interpretation would limit the applicability of the case to only closely held corporations, in which the majority of the stock is owned by a small number of shareholders.

Some might think Henry Ford’s attempt to forego profits in order to pay workers higher wages was a good choice but not find Hobby Lobby’s preference for limiting female employees’ health insurance benefits on religious grounds to be so. However, the law must be interpreted logically: If you give management the prerogative to put one social issue ahead of profits, should management not also be able to pursue any social issue of its choosing? An extension of the logic used in the Hobby Lobby case could lead to an expansion of the corporate rights of the personhood doctrine, for example, by allowing the individual right to privacy to become a shield against regulatory scrutiny by government agencies (although a corporation is not a natural person).

Another potential problem with giving management greater rights to pursue social agendas is protecting the interests of minority shareholders who disagree with the majority. Since corporation law is state law, the protections for minority shareholders vary widely, but owners of a small number of shares have little or no power to influence the choices the corporation makes. Some states allow cumulative voting for seats on the board of directors, which increases minority shareholder power. Others permit buyouts or dissolution statutes that apply to closely held corporations. However, in a traditional large corporation, none of these protections for minority interests are likely to apply. Of course, another option is for disgruntled shareholders to sell their shares.

The Two Sides of the Corporate Responsibility Debate

The issue of corporate social responsibility is the subject of high-level global discussion and debate among leaders in the public and private sectors, such as the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Numerous respected academic centers also hold forums on CSR, such as the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law at Stanford University and the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation.

As we have seen, slow but steady acceptance of CSR as a legitimate business concept has led to the legal and ethical position that corporate directors and managers may exercise business judgment and discretion in running a corporation. This development has come about for multiple reasons: a) the fact that society allows LLCs to exist, b) the sheer magnitude of the economic power corporations possess, and c) the desire of corporations to act responsibly in order to avoid more extensive government regulation. Managers are usually accorded significant latitude as long as they can point to a rational interpretation of their actions as benefiting the corporation as a whole in the long term. The combination of economic and political power in the world’s largest corporations necessitates that executives consider the interests of a broader set of stakeholders, rather than only stockholders. Indeed, social, environmental, and charitable programs often create shareholder value rather than take away from it. And honoring obligations to all stakeholders in a corporation—including those who own no stock shares—is the moral minimum a firm must undertake to satisfy the base threshold for acting ethically.

A recent study by researchers at Princeton and the University of Texas indicates that corporations benefit from following CSR policies in multiple ways.

These benefits are collectively called a “halo effect” and can add value to the business. As an example, consumers frequently take CSR spending as an indirect indicator that a company’s products are of high quality, and often they are also more willing to buy these products as an indirect way of donating to a good cause.

However, some economists, such as Milton Friedman, Henry Hazlitt, Adam Smith, and others, have argued that CSR initiatives based on environmental or social justice instead limit shareholder wealth.

The Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman (1912–2006) believed shareholders should be able decide for themselves what social initiatives to donate to or to take part in, rather than having a business executive decide for them. He argued that both government regulation and corporate social initiatives allow an outside third party to make these choices for shareholders.

In Friedman’s opinion, too much power assumed by corporate management in pursuing a social agenda might ultimately lead to a form of corporate autocracy. Supporters of the profit maximization principle believe it is a waste of corporate resources to reduce air pollution below the level required by law, to require vendors to participate in a sustainable supply chain initiative, or to pay lower-level employees a salary above the legally mandated minimum wage. Friedman asserted that “doing good deeds” is not the job of corporations; it is the right of those people who want to do them but should not be imposed on those who do not. His philosophy asserts that socially oriented initiatives are analogous to a form of outside regulation, resulting in higher costs to those corporations that follow socially responsible policies.

When Friedman was laying out this position in the 1970s, it reflected the prevailing opinion of a majority of U.S. shareholders and commentators on corporate law at that time. In the years since then, however, Friedman’s perspective has fallen into disfavor. This does not invalidate his point of view, but it does demonstrate that public opinion about corporations is subject to change over time. The subjectivity or relativity with which we view companies along with their perceived rights and responsibilities is a major theme this text addresses.

Do corporate directors owe a specific fiduciary duty to shareholders? A fiduciary duty is a very high level of legal responsibility owed by those who manage someone else’s money, which includes the duties of care and loyalty. Some examples of relationships that include a fiduciary duty are those between a trustee of an estate and its beneficiary, and between a fund manager and a client. According to the American Bar Association, the business judgment rule states “that as fiduciaries, corporate directors owe the corporation and its shareholders fiduciary duties of diligence and fidelity in performing their corporate duties. These fiduciary obligations include the duty of care and the duty of loyalty . . . the duty of care consists of an obligation to act on an informed basis; the duty of loyalty requires the board and its directors to maintain, in good faith, the corporation’s and its shareholders’ best interests over anyone else’s interests.”

So it would seem that the answer is yes, corporate directors do have a specific fiduciary duty to promote the best interests of the corporation. But what exactly does that duty entail? Does that specifically mean returning profits to shareholders in the form of dividends? As we have seen, these questions have frequently spilled over into the courts, in the form of shareholder lawsuits challenging the actions of directors and/or management.

UCLA law professor Steven Bainbridge wrote in the New York Times: “If directors were allowed to deviate from shareholder wealth maximization, they would inevitably turn to indeterminate balancing standards, which provide no accountability.”

As support for his position, Bainbridge pointed to a 2010 case, eBay Domestic Holdings Inc. v. Newmark, in which a Delaware court ruled that corporate directors are bound by fiduciary duties and standards that include “acting to promote the value of the corporation for the benefit of its stockholders.”

However, Lynn Stout, a professor at Cornell University Law School, wrote a contrasting piece in the New York Times in which she said, “There is a common belief that corporate directors have a legal duty to maximize corporate profits and shareholder value—even if this means skirting ethical rules, damaging the environment or harming employees. But this belief is utterly false. Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.”

Her opinion is based in part on the Hobby Lobby decision referenced above.

Thus, while ethicists may agree that corporations do indeed owe social responsibilities to society, legal experts still differ over this point. The fact that we have seen inconsistent decisions from the courts over the last century confirms the lack of legal consensus. Of course, both legal and ethical opinion are always in flux, so where the debate stands today in no way indicates where it will be in ten years. On this issue, public opinion, as well as that of politicians and even the courts, is like a pendulum swinging back and forth, usually between points of view that are center-right or center-left, rather than at the extremes. However, the pendulum is reset every so often, and the arc within which it swings may differ from era to era.

It is clear that many different stakeholders value corporate social responsibility, including some investors, shareholders, employees, customers, and suppliers. Indeed, some businesses look at CSR as providing a perfect long-term strategic opportunity to strengthen company fundamentals while contributing to society at the same time. Effective corporate leaders will get try to get investors on board with the idea of CSR, avoiding or minimizing the potential for any litigation related to maximization of profits. And innovative companies are finding ways to create value for both the business and society simultaneously.

Data analysis indicates that following a policy of corporate social responsibility does not have to mean losing money; on the contrary, many corporations that use an ethical approach to doing business are actually quite profitable. Mutual funds, recognizing that investors care about sustainable investing, now offer socially responsible funds, and third-party ratings companies, such as Morningstar, rate the funds so potential investors can evaluate how well the companies in them are meeting environment, social, and governance challenges. An example of such a fund is the Calvert Fund, which describes itself as a “leader in responsible investing with a mission to deliver superior long-term performance to our clients and to enable them to achieve positive impact.”

The chart below analyzes mutual funds and their rate of return over several different time periods; included are examples of both general index funds and “socially responsible” or social index funds ((Figure)). If we compare the two general index funds at the top to the three funds at the bottom that invest in socially responsible companies, we see a competitive return on investment in the social funds. Social responsibility does not mean lower profitability.

Environmental Justice

If a business activity harms the environment, what rights does the environment have to fight back? Corporations, although a form of business entity, are actually considered persons in the eyes of the law. Formally, corporate personhood, a concept we touched on in the preceding section, is the legal doctrine holding that a corporation, separate and apart from the people who are its owners and managers, has some of the same legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons (physical humans), based on an interpretation of the word “person” in the Fourteenth Amendment.

The generally accepted constitutional basis for allowing corporations to assert that they have rights similar to those of a natural person is that they are organizations of people who should not be deprived of their rights simply because they act collectively. Thus, treating corporations as persons who have legal rights allows them to enter into contracts with other parties and to sue and be sued in a court of law, along with numerous other legal rights. Before and after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), which upheld the First Amendment free-speech rights of corporations, there have been numerous challenges to the concept of corporate personhood; however, none have been successful. Thus, U.S. law considers corporations to be persons with rights protected under key constitutional amendments, regulations, and case law, as well as responsibilities under the law, just as human persons have.

A question that logically springs from judicial interpretations of corporate personhood is whether the environment should enjoy similar legal status. Should the environment be considered the legal equivalent of a person, able to sue a business that pollutes it? Should environmental advocates have been able to file a lawsuit against BP (formerly British Petroleum) on behalf of the entire Gulf of Mexico for harm created by the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill (discussed in more detail in the government regulation section of this chapter), which, at five million barrels, was ten times larger than the famous Exxon Valdez spill and remains the largest and most widespread ocean oil spill in the history of the global petroleum industry? Furthermore, the Deepwater Horizon spill affected not only thousands of businesses and people, but also the entirety of the Gulf of Mexico, which will suffer harm for years to come. Should the Gulf of Mexico have legal standing to sue, just like a person?

While U.S. jurisprudence has not yet officially recognized the concept that Earth has legal rights, there are examples of progress. Ecuador is now the first country to officially recognize the concept.

The country rewrote its Constitution in 2008, and it includes a section entitled “Rights for Nature.” It recognizes nature’s right to exist, and people have the legal authority to enforce these rights on behalf of the ecosystem, which can itself be named as a litigant in a lawsuit.

Earth jurisprudence is an interpretation of law and governance based on the belief that society will be sustainable only if we recognize the legal rights of Earth as if it were a person. Advocates of earth jurisprudence assert that there is legal precedent for this position. As pointed out earlier in this chapter, it is not only natural persons who have legal rights, but also corporations, which are artificial entities. Our legal system also recognizes the rights of animals and has for several decades. According to earth jurisprudence advocates, officially recognizing the legal status of the environment is necessary to preserving a healthy planet for future generations, in particular because of the problem of “invisible pollution.”

Businesses that pollute the environment often hide what they are doing in order to avoid getting caught and facing economic, legal, or social consequences. The only witness may be Earth itself, which experiences the harmful impact of their invisible actions. For example, as revealed in a recent report,

companies all over the world have for years been secretly burning toxic materials, such as carbon dioxide, at night. A company that needs to dump a toxic substance usually has three choices: dispose of it properly at a safe facility, recycle and reuse it, or secretly dump it. There is no doubt that dumping is the easiest and cheapest option for most businesses.

As another example, approximately twenty-five million people board cruise ships every year, and as a result, cruise ships dump one billion gallons (3.8 billion liters) of sewage into the oceans annually, usually at night so no one sees or smells it. Friends of the Earth, a nongovernmental organization (NGO) concerned with environmental issues, used data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to calculate this figure.

The sewage dumped into the sea is full of toxins, including heavy metals, pathogens, bacteria, viruses, and pharmaceutical drugs ((Figure)). When invisibly released near coasts, this untreated sewage can kill marine animals, contaminate seafood, and sicken swimmers, and no one registers the damage except the ocean itself. Many believe the environment should have the right not to be secretly polluted in the dead of night, and Earth should have rights at least equal to those of corporations.

Cormac Cullinan, an environmental attorney, author, and leading proponent of earth jurisprudence, often collaborates with other environmental advocates such as Thomas Berry, an eco-theologian, scholar, and author. Cullinan, Berry, and others have written extensively about the important legal tenets of earth jurisprudence; however, it is not a legal doctrine officially adopted by the United States or any of its states to date. The concept of earth justice is tied indirectly to the economic theory of the “tragedy of the commons,” a phrase derived from British economist William Forster Lloyd, who, in the mid-nineteenth century, used a hypothetical example of unregulated grazing on common land to explain the human tendency to act independently, putting self-interest first, without regard for the common good of all users. The theory was later popularized by ecologist and philosopher Garrett Hardin, who tied it directly to environmental issues. In other words, when it comes to natural resources, the tragedy of the commons holds that people generally use as much of a free resource as they want, without regard for the needs of others or for the long-term environmental effects. As a way of combating the tragedy of the commons, Cullinan and others have written about the concept of earth justice,

which includes the following tenets:

“The Earth and all living things that constitute it have fundamental rights, including the right to exist, to have a habitat or a place to be.
Humans must adapt their legal, political, economic, and social systems to be consistent with the fundamental laws or principles that govern how the universe functions.
Human acts, including acts by businesses that infringe on the fundamental rights of other living things violate fundamental principles and are therefore illegitimate and unlawful.”

Today, supporters of the environment assert that government has both a right and an obligation to ensure that businesses do not overuse any resource, and to mandate adequate environmental protection when doing so. In addition, some form of fee may be collected for using up a natural resource, such as severance taxes imposed on the removal of nonrenewable resources like oil and gas, or deposits required for possible cleanup costs after projects have been abandoned. As part of the growing acceptance of the concept of earth justice, several nonprofit educational organizations and NGOs have become active in both lobbying and environmental litigation. One such organization is the Center for Earth Jurisprudence (housed at the Barry School of Law in Orlando), a nonprofit group that conducts research in this area.

Why Sustainability Is Good for Business

The notion that the environment should be treated as a person is relatively new. But given the prominence of the environmental movement worldwide, no well-managed business today should be conducted without an awareness of the tenuous balance between the health of the environment and corporate profits. It is quite simply good business practice for executives to be aware that their enterprise’s long-term sustainability, and indeed its profitability, depend greatly on their safeguarding the natural environment. Ignoring this interrelationship between business and the environment not only elicits public condemnation and the attention of lawmakers who listen to their constituents, but it also risks destroying the viability of the companies themselves. Virtually all businesses depend on natural resources in one way or another.

Progressive corporate managers recognize the multifaceted nature of sustainability—a long-term approach to business activity, environmental responsibility, and societal impact. Sustainability affects not only the environment but also other stakeholders, including employees, the community, politics, law, science, and philosophy. A successful sustainability program thus requires the commitment of every part of the company. For example, engineers are designing manufacturing and production processes to meet the demands of companies dedicated to sustainability, and the idea of company-wide sustainability is now mainstream. Many of the largest companies in the world see sustainability as an important part of their future survivability.

The High Cost of Inaction

According to estimates from the EPA, by the year 2050, Earth’s population will be about ten billion people. Dramatic population growth has had a very significant and often negative human impact on the planet. Not only are there more people to feed, house, and care for, but new technologies allow businesses to harness natural resources in unprecedented amounts. NGOs and government agencies alike have taken notice. For years, the Department of State and the Department of Defense have considered climate change to be a potential threat to the long-term security of the United States. If unmanaged, climate change could pose a risk to both U.S. security and Department of Defense facilities and operations.

Other respected organizations are also alerting the public to the risks of ignoring climate change.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has released a detailed report identifying approximately twenty serious risks that will be faced if the problem is not addressed in a substantial way. These risks include rising seas and increased coastal flooding, more intense and frequent heat waves, more destructive hurricanes, wildfires that last longer and produce more damage, and heavier precipitation in some areas and more severe droughts in other areas. In addition to extreme weather events, there would likely be widespread forest death in the Rocky Mountains and other mountain ranges, the destruction of coral reefs, and shifts in the ranges of plants and animals. Both military bases and national landmarks would be at risk, as would the electrical grid and food supply. The UCS, with a membership consisting of the world’s most respected scientists, bases its projections on scientific research studies that have produced empirical evidence of climate change. Its official position is that “global warming is already having significant and very costly effects on communities, public health, and our environment.”

Environmental protection and climate change issues receive varying degrees of support at the national level, depending on the commitment different presidents make to them. During periods in which the administration in Washington demonstrates a lower priority for climate change issues, such as the Trump administration’s announced intention to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, private companies may take the lead on actions to reduce global warming emissions.

For example, Microsoft founder Bill Gates recently announced the creation of a private initiative to invest $20 billion on climate-related research and development over the next five years. This is an example of government-funded early experimental research that a business may be able to turn into a commercially viable solution. If government steps back, private-sector companies concerned about long-term sustainability may have to take a leadership role.

Ultimately, it requires the cooperation of public and private efforts to address climate change; otherwise, the impacts will continue to intensify, growing more costly and more damaging.”

Sustainability often requires the public and private sectors to cooperate. Inaction contributes to disasters like the 2017 devastation of Houston by Hurricane Harvey and of Puerto Rico by Hurricane Maria. There is often tension between developers who want to build and cities that try to legislate for more green space. Green space not only offers a place for recreation and enjoyment of nature, but also provides essential natural drainage for rain and flood waters, reducing the likelihood that developed areas will end up underwater in a storm.

U.S. government agencies, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, have identified many challenges in which sustainability can make a positive contribution. These include climate change, decreasing supplies of clean water, loss of ecological systems, degradation of the oceans, air pollution, an increase in the use and disposal of toxic substances, and the plight of endangered species.

Progress toward solving these challenges depends in part on deciding who should help pay for the protection of global environmental resources; this is an issue of both environmental and distributive justice.

One way to address the issue of shared responsibility between corporations and society is the implementation of a “cap and trade” system. According to the Environmental Defense Fund, cap and trade is a viable approach to addressing climate change by curbing emissions that pollute the air: The “cap” is a limit on greenhouse gas emissions—if companies exceed their cap, they must pay penalties—whereas the “trade” allows companies to use the free market to buy and sell pollution allowances that permit them to emit a certain amount of pollution.

At present, there are more questions than answers, including how much of the responsibility lies with governments, how this responsibility can be allocated between developed and developing nations, how much of the cost should the private sector bear, and how should these divisions of cost and responsibility be enforced. Private companies must bear part of the cost, and the business sector recognizes they have some responsibility, but many disagree on whether that should be in the form of after-the-fact fines, or before-the-fact fees and deposits paid to the government. Regulations may very well have to be international in scope, or companies from one country may abuse the environment in another.

Inaction on issues of sustainability can lead to long-term environmental consequences that may not be reversible (the death of ocean coral, the melting of polar ice caps, deforestation). Another hurdle is that it is sometimes difficult to convince companies and their investors that quarterly or annual profits are short-term and transitory, whereas environmental sustainability is long-term and permanent.

Environmental Economics and Policy

Some politicians and business leaders in the United States believe that the U.S. system of capitalism and free enterprise is the main reason for the nation’s prosperity over the past two hundred years and the key to its future success. Free enterprise was very effective in facilitating the economic development of the United States, and many people benefited from it. But it is equally true that this could not have happened without the country’s wealth of natural resources like oil, gas, timber, water, and many others. When we consider the environment and the role of sustainability, the question is not whether our system works well with an abundance of natural resources. Rather, we should ask how well it would work in a nation, indeed in a world, in which such resources were severely limited.

Does business, as the prime user of these resources, owe a debt to society? The Harvard Business Review recently conducted a debate on this topic on its opinion/editorial pages. Business owes the world everything and nothing, according to Andrew Winston, author and consultant on environmental and social challenges. “It’s an important question,” he wrote, “but one that implies business should do the socially responsible thing out of a sense of duty. This idea is a distraction. Sustainability in business is not about philanthropy, but about profitability, innovation, and growth. It’s just plain good business.”

On the other hand, Bart Victor, professor at Vanderbilt University’s Owen Graduate School of Management, wrote, “Business is far more powerful and deeply influential than any competing ideological force, political force or environmental force . . . business now has to see itself and its responsibilities and obligations in a new way.”

Using deontological or duty-based reasoning, we might conclude that business does owe a debt to the environment. A basic moral imperative in a normative system of ethics is that someone who uses something must pay for it. In contrast, a more utilitarian philosophy might hold that corporations create jobs, make money for shareholders, pay taxes, and produce things that people want; thus, they have done their part and do not owe any other debt to the environment or society at large. However, utilitarianism is often regarded as a “here and now” philosophy, whereas deontology offers a longer-term approach, taking future generations into account and thus aligning more with sustainability.

Should businesses have to pay more in fees or taxes than ordinary citizens for public resources or infrastructure they use to make a profit? Consider the example of fracking: West Texas has seen a recent boom in oil and gas drilling due to this relatively new process. Fracking is short for hydraulic fracturing, which creates cracks in rocks beneath Earth’s surface to loosen oil and gas trapped there, thus allowing it to flow more easily to the surface. Fracking has led to a greatly expanded effort to drill horizontally for oil and gas in the United States, especially in formations previously thought to be unprofitable, because there was no feasible way to get the fossil fuels to the surface. However, it comes with a significant downside.

Fracking requires very heavy equipment and an enormous amount of sand, chemicals, and water, most of which must be trucked in. Traffic around Texas’s small towns has increased to ten times the normal amount, buckling the roads under the pressure of a never-ending stream of oil company trucks. The towns do not have the budget to repair them, and residents end up driving on dangerous roads full of potholes. The oil company trucks are using a public resource, the local road system, often built with a combination of state and local taxpayer funds. They are obviously responsible for more of the damage than local residents driving four-door sedans to work. Shouldn’t the businesses have to pay a special levy to repair the roads? Many think it is unfair for small towns to have to burden their taxpayers, most of whom are not receiving any of the profits from oil and gas development, with the cost of road repair. An alternative might be to impose a Pigovian tax, which is a fee assessed against private businesses for engaging in a specific activity (proposed by British economist A. C. Pigou). If set at the proper level, the tax is intended as a deterrent to activities that impose a net cost—what economists call “negative externalities”—on third parties such as local residents.

This issue highlights one of many environmental debates sparked by the fracking process. Fracking also causes the overuse and pollution of fresh water, spills toxic chemicals into the ground water, and increases the potential for earthquakes due to the injection wells drilled for chemical disposal. Ultimately, as is often the case with issues stemming from natural resource extraction, local residents may receive a few short-term benefits from business activity related to drilling, but they end up suffering a disproportionate share of the long-term harm.

One method of dealing with the long-term harm caused by pollution is a carbon tax, that is, a “pay-to-pollute” system that charges a fee or tax to those who discharge carbon into the air. A carbon tax serves to motivate users of fossil fuels, which release harmful carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at no cost, to switch to cleaner energy sources or, failing that, to at least pay for the climate damage they cause, based on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions generated from burning fossil fuels. A proposal to implement a carbon tax system in the United States has been recommended by many organizations, including the conservative Climate Leadership Council (CLC).

Exxon Mobil, Shell, British Petroleum, and Total, along with other oil companies and a number of large corporations in other industries, recently announced their support for the plan to tax carbon emissions put forth by the CLC.

Would this “pay-to-pollute” method actually work? Will companies agree to repay the debt they owe to the environment? Michael Gerrard, the director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University Law School, said, “If a sufficiently high carbon tax were imposed, it could accomplish a lot more for fighting climate change than liability lawsuits.”

Initial estimates are that if the program were implemented, companies would pay more than $200 billion a year, or $2 trillion in the first decade, an amount deemed sufficient to motivate the expanded use of renewable sources of energy and reduce the use of nonrenewable fossil fuels.

Some environmental organizations, including the Nature Conservancy and the World Resources Institute, are also endorsing the plan, as are some legislators in Washington, DC. “The basic idea is simple,” Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said. “You levy a price on a thing you don’t want—carbon pollution—and you use the revenue to help with things you do want.”

According to the senator, a U.S. carbon tax or a fee of $45 per metric ton would reduce U.S. carbon emissions by more than 40 percent in the first decade. This is an idea with global support, and it has already been tried. The World Bank has data indicating that forty countries, along with some major cities, have already enacted such programs, including all countries of the EU, as well as New Zealand and Japan.

Sustainability and the Public Interest

For two centuries, businesses have profited from using and selling the nation’s natural resources. The tradeoff in a free but regulated economic system such as that in the United States is to allow the continued extraction of natural resources but to require a commitment to protection of the environment in return. This bargain promotes long-term sustainability by balancing the interests of the environment, state and local governments, and users of natural resources. However, this public-private collaboration is not without controversy.

When discussing the topic of sustainability as a function of responsible and sustainable business conduct, we consider not only environmental health but also public health. Polluting the environment is bad for public health, but so too are a wide variety of inherently dangerous products from alcohol to tobacco to guns to drugs. The World Health Organization estimates that alcohol is the cause of close to 7 percent of all deaths each year globally, or about 3.5 million people, and total global sales of alcohol are well over $1 trillion per year.

The question is whether society should allow businesses to market, sell, and profit from a product that causes so many deaths and creates a significant public health problem. The same question can be asked about tobacco, on which businesses make over half a trillion dollars annually and which the United States has struggled to regulate for years. Some businesses are acting on their own to rein in the sale or use of harmful products. In 2014, CVS, a drugstore and health care giant, chose to stop selling tobacco products, because such sales do not support its corporate mission.

Few issues are the source of as much public debate as guns, but it is clear that gun violence in the United States is a major public health challenge. There are about 35,000 deaths per year in the United States due to firearms, and another 75,000 nonfatal firearm injuries. However, thousands of businesses profit from gun sales. Annual revenue in the gun and ammunition manufacturing industry is close to $14 billion, producing a profit of $1.5 billion, whereas the annual revenue of gun and ammunition stores is an additional $3 billion, resulting in a profit of $500 million.

Based on these facts, should the sale of guns remain relatively unregulated, or, in the interest of public health, should the government increase regulatory efforts in this area? On the corporate front, after the most recent fatal mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida, several companies took action without waiting for the law to change. Dick’s Sporting Goods announced it will no longer sell semi-automatic assault rifles, such as the AR-15, as has Kroger, which owns Fred Meyer stores. Walmart has announced it will no longer sell guns to anyone under twenty-one years of age.

Another pressing social issue is opioid abuse. In 2016, there were approximately sixty thousand deaths due to drug overdoses, almost double the number of gun deaths. Profits from the sale of these drugs are in the tens of billions of dollars, and the pharmaceutical industry spends $100 million lobbying Congress not to regulate it more stringently. Some local government entities are suing opioid drug manufacturers,

and, in the private sector, CVS recently announced it would now fill opioid prescriptions with supplies for only seven days. While opioids are legal and often legitimately prescribed for pain management, a large part of the problem is that they are also overprescribed.

Given these facts, should pharmaceutical corporations be allowed to profit from this product? What ethical or legal responsibilities do those in the medical community have for the problem?

Although sustainability discussions justifiably focus on the protection of human life and public health issues, a related ethical issue close to the hearts of many citizens is animal rights. Businesses have begun to take notice of public demands in this area, as evidenced by a 2017 Fortune article about the Yoox Net-a-Porter Group.

Net-a-Porter is a large, online retailer (with $2 billion/year in sales) that markets top-line brands such as Prada, Gucci, and Michael Kors. After a survey of its customers showed that a significant majority want the company to forgo fur products, it decided to forbid the use of fur in its entire line. Other big-name brands such as Armani, Hugo Boss, North Face, Nautica, and Timberland have followed Net-a-Porter’s lead and recently announced fur-free policies.

Related developments are taking place in the cosmetics and food industries. Many cosmetics companies have announced cruelty-free product testing policies for products ranging from makeup to hairspray. In the food industry, the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently reported that cage-free eggs account for approximately one-quarter of the wholesale shell egg market.

Why? Sales and profits are the answer, along with sustainability. According to research conducted by Walmart, over 75 percent of the retail giant’s customers said they would be more likely to shop at a store that improves its policies related to animal welfare. Thus, not only Walmart but also supermarket chains such as Kroger have announced the gradual implementation of cage-free egg-buying policies, as have fast food giants such as McDonald’s and Burger King.

Such changes are often prompted, if not driven, by the influence of informed consumer stakeholders who are demanding the products they want to buy.

The Revolving Door between Government Regulation and the Private Sector

While private companies may take the initiative in response to public demand, and intergovernmental cooperation can accomplish many good things, sometimes the solution is for a private-sector company or industry to work directly with the government, as we saw with the example of Space X. Given the pressure on federal, state, and local agencies to reduce their budgets, many have increasingly turned to public-private partnerships, or P3s, as a means to solve problems.

Sometimes, however, the relationship between business and government can become too close, as when executives from the private sector leave their jobs to work for government agencies, becoming the regulators rather than the regulated, and then return to industry in a kind of “revolving door” effect. For example, Goldman Sachs, one of the world’s largest financial services firms, has seen many of its executives take senior leadership positions in the presidential administrations of both Democrats and Republicans, including the present secretary of the treasury, Steven Mnuchin. The same trend is occurring on a global level; Mario Draghi, the president of the European Central Bank, was previously a vice chair and managing director of Goldman Sachs International, and Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, worked for Goldman Sachs as well. The large number of executives from one of the biggest investment banks in the world moving in and out of government service causes some critics to warn of the “fox guarding the hen house” approach to regulation. Is the relationship between government and the private sector sometimes too cozy? Does this revolving door in fact result in bad policy?

Of course, it would be incorrect to assume, because multiple executives of a firm landed in government positions, that the firm is automatically guilty of wrongdoing. Goldman Sachs has created several programs with ethical goals. The company encourages clients to consider environmental and sustainability issues, and it backs green bonds, which are used to fund projects that have positive environmental and/or climate benefits. In truth, our government would find it difficult to function without the expertise from the private sector supplementing that of the public sector in public service positions.

Research by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City demonstrates how regulation and legislation in this area must strike a balance between encouraging and discouraging executives from the private sector to serve in high-level government positions. Our system of government service does not want to run the risk of undermining “the ability of regulatory agencies to seek and retain top level talent, but at the same time we do not want to impair the independence of government policy-makers.”

A quick look at some figures indicates the scope of the problem. A 2008 General Accounting Office survey of fifty large defense contractors revealed that almost ninety thousand people who had left the Department of Defense in the preceding eight years were afterwards employed by private-sector companies doing business with the government as contractors.

While legal restrictions exist to limit the revolving door effect, most relate only to direct government contracting. Private-sector companies seeking to acquire talent by hiring former employees of the federal government must be aware of the statutory and regulatory restrictions and their associated penalties.

One rule says former senior government employees may not make any communication with or appearance before their former agency, with the intent to influence the agency, for one year after leaving service. The ban is extended to two years for certain “very senior” officials.

Penalties for violations can include fines of up to $50,000 per violation and/or twice the amount of compensation received. On a company level, the penalty can be up to $500,000 per violation and/or twice the amount of the contract. Moreover, individuals who intentionally violate the law may be subject to criminal penalties, which can include up to five years in jail.

In 2009, shortly after he took office, President Obama issued an executive order requiring all executive agency appointees to take an ethics pledge as a prerequisite for accepting appointment. The pledge included a lobbying ban and restrictions on appointees and lobbyists entering and leaving the government. For instance, appointees entering the government had to agree not to participate in any matter both “directly and substantially” related to their former employer or clients for two years.

However, because these ethical restrictions were implemented by way of executive order, not federal statute, they may vary from president to president. Ethical questions have been raised about traditional conflict of interest concepts in the present administration, because people currently serving in it have retained ownership of private companies rather than selling them or placing them in blind trusts.

Of course, the relationship between government and business is an important one, and expertise in a field can be extremely valuable to both sides in a business-government partnership. However, this collaboration should be transparent and subject to public scrutiny, as noted by the Brookings Institution, one of the oldest nonprofit public policy think tanks. In a report entitled “Amateur Government: When Political Appointees Manage the Federal Bureaucracy,” the Institution warns against the potential for conflicts of interest stemming from allowing too many industry executives to move into government service, set overtly pro-industry policies, and then go back to their higher-paying, private-sector jobs. The key is to seek a balance.

Government Regulation and the Constitution

Over the past decade, many politicians have run for office on a platform of reducing government regulation. There are at least two closely related positions on reducing federal government regulation. The first is essentially a states’ rights position that seeks to limit the powers of the federal government to those very specifically enumerated in the Constitution. It is based on principles embodied in the Tenth Amendment and on a narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states any right not specifically delegated to the federal government. The Commerce Clause is the part of the Constitution that gives the federal government the right to regulate commerce between states.

The second, related view of government regulation holds that “less is better” at all levels, whether state or federal. Its followers simply seek to reduce the size of government and regulation at every level. Some might attribute this position to a libertarian or “small government” philosophy.

These two philosophies might be characterized as less government regulation vs. no government regulation, other than military defense. The preference for state regulation is often based on a belief in the business community that many states are softer on regulation that the federal government, or that states are closer to the problems businesses face and are more efficient at addressing them. However, there is little clear evidence that one branch of government is more efficient than another. The real challenge is weighing the benefits of regulation against the costs, and finding the right balance between over- and under-regulation. Weak regulation can allow a business to cut corners. For instance, auto emission regulations intended to go into effect by certain dates have been delayed multiple times during the 1980s and the early 2000s. The Obama administration announced plans to enforce tougher rules, but the current administration has said it plans to delay implementation. Auto emission regulations have become politically charged, constantly changing depending on the party in power, and some states have responded with their own legislation instead of waiting for the federal stalemate to end. Regulation that is consistently enforced in the effort to achieve the long-term goal, such as cleaner air, is preferable to a moving target.

A third position is that government is not necessarily a bad thing. Such a “federalist” philosophy might assert that centralized government provides an array of benefits for citizens. For example, in the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton emphasized that a well-intentioned central government was not the enemy of liberty but rather the best means of securing the rights achieved through the passage of the Constitution. He and others also pointed out an advantage of federal over state government—a large republic such as the United States would actually benefit from a larger electorate and a larger pool of qualified leaders, and competing state and regional interests would be more balanced under federal regulation.

Acceptance of one or the other of these philosophies may lean an administration towards more or less regulation, as well as calibrating its response to aggressive lobbying by industries seeking to reduce regulation they view as burdensome. The results for the environment and/or public health can sometimes be disastrous.

Questions of regulation and political influence have become even more sensitive in recent years, following the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010).

In Citizens United, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that laws preventing corporations from using general treasury funds for political advertising violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. In other words, the government may not prevent corporations from spending money to support or oppose candidates in elections. With this decision, the Court invalidated numerous campaign finance reform laws. Many commentators think the decision opened the floodgates for special-interest groups to spend without limit in U.S. elections.

What does Citizens United mean for businesses? Business entities may now seek to persuade the voting public by spending an unlimited amount of money on political ads, whether through social media or traditional print and broadcast media. Businesses opposed to government regulation can spend without limit to help elect candidates whose position on reduced regulation is the same as theirs, thereby increasing the pressure on Congress to deregulate. Many think the profusion of money in U.S. politics is one cause of the partisan divide that often paralyzes the legislative branch and unduly influences the executive branch.

One of the sponsors of the corporate governance law known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), is among those who would like to see financial limits on business lobbying groups and political action committees, several of which are attempting to repeal current regulations such as SOX, which is tough on business fraud. Sarbanes-Oxley, passed in 2002 in response to several highly publicized corporate fraud cases that took down companies such as Enron and WorldCom, mandates reporting transparency in areas ranging from finance to accounting to supply chain activities. Essentially, it ensures that we now consider it both unethical and illegal to deceive shareholders, creditors, and the public at large.

Sarbanes-Oxley applies to publicly traded companies and is enforced by the Securities and Exchange Commission. It covers multiple topics such as the independence of corporate boards and outside certified public accounting firms that audit corporations. The law also makes the CEO and CFO personally responsible for errors in annual audits—thus making it harder to “cook the books.” Finally, it prohibits company loans to executives and grants protection to whistleblowers.

Some critics thought compliance with SOX might be too costly. However, after more than a decade of enforcement, it is now clear to most that Sarbanes-Oxley was, and is, a necessary regulatory step. It has allowed for significant progress to be made in slowing down the kind of unethical conduct that led to the Enron fraud. Although SOX technically applies only to publicly traded companies, many private companies also adopt SOX-style internal controls and transparency, as do not-for-profits such as universities and hospitals.

Business Encounters Culture

To understand the influence of culture on business ethics, it is essential to understand the concepts of enculturation and acculturation. In its most basic anthropological sense, enculturation refers to the process by which humans learn the rules, customs, skills, and values to participate in a society. In other words, no one is born with culture; all humans, regardless of their origin, have to learn what is considered appropriate behavior in their surrounding cultures. Whereas enculturation is the acquisition of any society’s norms and values, acculturation refers specifically to the cultural transmission and socialization process that stems from cultural exchange. The effects of this blending of cultures appear in both the native (original) culture and the host (adopted) culture. Historically, acculturation has often been the result of military or political conquest. Today, it also comes about through economic development and the worldwide reach of the media.

One of the earliest real estate deals in the New World exemplifies the complexity that results when different cultures, experiences, and ethical codes come into contact. No deed of sale remains, so it is difficult to tell exactly what happened in May 1626 in what is now Manhattan, but historians agree that some kind of transaction took place between the Dutch West India Company, represented by Pieter Minuit, the newly appointed director-general of the New Netherland colony, and the Lenape, a Native American tribe ((Figure)). Which exact Lenape tribe is unknown; its members may have been simply passing through Manhattan and could have been the Canarsee, who lived in what is today southern Brooklyn.

Legend has it that the Dutch bought Manhattan island for $24 worth of beads and trinkets, but some historians believe the natives granted the Dutch only fishing and hunting rights and not outright ownership. Furthermore, the price, acknowledged as “sixty guilders” (about $1000 today), could actually represent the value of items such as farming tools, muskets, gun powder, kettles, axes, knives, and clothing offered by the Dutch. Clearly, the reality was more nuanced than the legend.

The “purchase” of Manhattan is an excellent case study of an encounter between two vastly different cultures, worldviews, histories, and experiences of reality, all within a single geographic area. Although it is a misconception that the native peoples of what would become the United States did not own property or value individual possession, it is nevertheless true that their approach to property was more fluid than that of the Dutch and of later settlers like the English, who regarded property as a fixed commodity that could be owned and transferred to others. These differences, as well as enforced taxation, eventually led to war between the Dutch and several Native American tribes.

European colonization only exacerbated hostilities and misunderstandings, not merely about how to conduct business but also about how to live together in harmony.

Two major conditions affect the relationship between business and culture. The first is that business is not culturally neutral. Today, it typically displays a mindset that is Western and primarily English-speaking and is reinforced by the enculturation process of Western nations, which tends to emphasize individualism and competition. In this tradition, business is defined as the exchange of goods and services in a dedicated market for the purpose of commerce and creating value for its owners and investors. Thus, business is not open ended but rather directed toward a specific goal and supported by beliefs about labor, ownership, property, and rights.

In the West, we typically think of these beliefs in Western terms. This worldview explains the misunderstanding between Minuit, who assumed he was buying Manhattan, and the tribal leaders, who may have had in mind nothing of the sort but instead believed they were granting some use rights. The point is that a particular understanding of and approach to business are already givens in any particular culture. Businesspeople who work across cultures in effect have entered the theater in the middle of the movie, and often they must perform the translation work of business to put their understanding and approach into local cultural idioms. One example of this is the fact that you might find sambal chili sauce in an Indonesian McDonald’s in place of Heinz ketchup, but the restaurant, nevertheless, is a McDonald’s.

The second condition that affects the relationship between business and culture is more complex because it reflects an evolving view of business in which the purpose is not solely generating wealth but also balancing profitability and responsibility to the public interest and the planet. In this view, which has developed as a result of political change and economic globalization, organizations comply with legal and economic regulations but then go beyond them to effect social change and sometimes even social justice.

The dominant manufacture-production-marketing-consumption model is changing to meet the demands of an increasing global population and finite resources. No longer can an organization maintain a purely bottom-line mentality; now it must consider ethics, and, therefore, social responsibility and sustainability, throughout its entire operation. As a result, local cultures are assuming a more aggressive role in defining their relationship with business prevalent in their regions.

Had this change taken place four centuries ago, that transaction in Manhattan might have gone a little differently. However, working across cultures can also create challenging ethical dilemmas, especially in regions where corruption is commonplace. A number of companies have experienced this problem, and globalization will likely only increase its incidence.

Balancing Beliefs

What about the ethical dimensions of a business in a developed country engaging in commerce in an environment where corruption might be more rampant than at home? How can an organization remain true to its mission and what it believes about itself while honoring local customs and ethical standards? The question is significant because it goes to the heart of the organization’s values, its operations, and its internal culture. What must a business do to engage with local culture while still fulfilling its purpose, whether managers see that purpose as profitability, social responsibility, or a balance between the two?

Most business organizations hold three kinds of beliefs about themselves. The first identifies the purpose of business itself. In recent years, this purpose has come to be the creation not just of shareholder wealth but also of economic or personal value for workers, communities, and investors.

The second belief defines the organization’s mission, which encapsulates its purpose. Most organizations maintain some form of mission statement. For instance, although IBM did away with its formal mission statement in 2003, its underlying beliefs about itself have remained intact since its founding in 1911. These are (1) dedication to client success, (2) innovation that matters (for IBM and the world), and (3) trust and personal responsibility in all relationships.

President and chief executive officer (CEO) Ginni Rometty stated the company “remain[s] dedicated to leading the world into a more prosperous and progressive future; to creating a world that is fairer, more diverse, more tolerant, more just.”

Finally, businesses also go through the process of enculturation; as a result, they have certain beliefs about themselves, drawn from the customs, language, history, religion, and ethics of the culture in which they are formed. One example of a company whose ethics and ethical practices are deeply embedded in its culture is Merck & Co., one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies and known for its strong ethical values and leadership. As its founder George W. Merck (1894–1957) once stated, “We try to remember that medicine is for the patient. We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for the profits. The profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they have never failed to appear. The better we have remembered it, the larger they have been.”

Culture is deeply rooted, but businesses may make their own interpretations of its accepted norms.

Our beliefs are also challenged when a clash occurs between a legal framework and cultural norms, such as when a company feels compelled to engage in dubious and even illegal activities to generate business. For example, the German technology company Siemens has paid billions of dollars in fines and judgments for bribing government officials in several countries. Although some local officials may have expected to receive bribes to grant government contracts, Siemens was still bound by national and international regulations forbidding the practice, as well as by its own code of ethics. How can a company remain true to its mission and code of ethics in a highly competitive international environment ((Figure))?

Business performance is a reflection of what an organization believes about itself, as in the IBM and Merck examples.

Those beliefs, in turn, spring from what the individuals in the organization believe about it and themselves, based on their communities, families, personal biographies, religious beliefs, and educational backgrounds. Unless key leaders have a vision for the organization and themselves, and a path to achieving it, there can be no balance of beliefs about profitability and responsibility, or integration of business with culture. The Manhattan purchase was successful to the degree that Minuit and the tribal leaders were willing to engage in an exchange of mutual benefit. Yet this revealed a transaction between two very different commercial cultures. Did each group truly understand the other’s perception of an exchange of goods and services? Furthermore, did the parties balance personal and collective beliefs for the greater good? Given the distinctions between these two cultures, would that even have been possible?

Consumerism and the Global Marketplace

To paraphrase the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus (c. 535–475 BCE), the one constant in life is change. Traditional norms and customs have changed as the world’s population has grown more diverse and urbanized, and as the Internet has made news and other resources readily available. The growing emphasis on consumerism—a lifestyle characterized by the acquisition of goods and services—has meant that people have become defined as “consumers” as opposed to citizens or human beings. Unfortunately, this emphasis eventually leads to the problem of diminishing marginal utility, with the consumer having to buy an ever-increasing amount to reach the same level of satisfaction.

At the same time, markets have become more diverse and interconnected. For example, South Korean companies like LG and Samsung employ 52,000 workers in the United States,

and many U.S. companies now manufacture their products abroad. Such globalization of their domestic markets has allowed U.S. consumers to enjoy products from around the world, but it also presents ethical challenges. The individual consumer, for instance, may benefit from lower prices and a greater selection of goods, but only by supporting a company that might be engaged in unethical practices in its overseas supply or distribution chains. Producers’ choices about wages, working conditions, environmental impact, child labor, taxation, and plant safety feature in the creation of each product brought to market. Becoming aware of these factors requires consumers to engage in an investigation of the business practices of those parties they will patronize and exercise a certain amount of cultural and ethical sensitivity.

In considering the ethical challenges presented by the outsourcing of production to lower costs and increase profits, let us return to the example of IBM. IBM has a responsibility to provide technology products of high quality at affordable prices in line with its beliefs about client success, innovation, and trust. If it achieved these ends in a fraudulent or otherwise illegal way, it would be acting irresponsibly and in violation of both U.S. and host country laws and as well as the company’s own code of ethics. These constraints appear to leave little room for unethical behavior, yet in a globalized world of intense competition, the temptation to do anything possible to carve out an advantage can be overpowering. This choice between ends and means is reminiscent of the philosophers Aristotle and Kant, both of whom believed it impossible to achieve just ends through unjust means.

But what about consumer responsibility and the impact on the global community? Western consumers tend to perceive globalization as a phenomenon intended to benefit them specifically. In general, they have few compunctions about Western businesses offshoring their manufacturing operations as long as it ultimately benefits them as consumers. However, even in business, ethics is not about consumption but rather about human morality, a greater end. Considering an expansion of domestic markets, what feature of this process enables us to become more humane rather than simply pickier consumers or wasteful spenders? It is the opportunity to encounter other cultures and people, increasing our ethical awareness and sensitivity. Seen in this way, globalization affects the human condition. It raises no less a question than what kind of world we want to leave to our children and grandchildren.

Shifts in Cultural and Ethical Standards

We find an example of changing cultural mores in the fashion industry, where drastic evolution can occur even over ten years, let alone a century. The changes can be more than simply stylistic ones. Clothing reflects people’s view of themselves, their world, and their values. A woman in the first half of the twentieth century might be very proud to wear a fox stole with its head and feet intact ((Figure)). Today, many would consider that an ethical faux pas, even as the use of fur remains common in the industry despite active campaigns against it by organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. At the same time, cosmetics manufacturers increasingly pledge not to test their products on animals, reflecting changing awareness of animals’ rights.

Bias is built into the human psyche and expressed through our social structures. For this reason, we should avoid making snap judgments about past eras based on today’s standards. The challenge, of course, is to know which values are situational—that is, although many values and ethics are relative and subjective, others are objectively true, at least to most people. We can hardly argue in favor of slavery, for example, no matter in which culture or historical era it was practiced. Of course, although some values strike us as universal, the ways in which they are interpreted and applied vary over time, so that what was once acceptable no longer is, or the reverse.

Thus, we acknowledge that different eras upheld different ethical standards, and that each of these standards has had an impact on our understanding of ethics today. But this realization raises some basic questions. First, what should we discard and what should we keep from the past? Second, on what basis should we make this decision? Third, is history cumulative, progressing onward and upward through time, or does it unfold in different and more complicated ways, sometimes circling back upon itself?

The major historical periods that have shaped business ethics are the age of mercantilism, the Industrial Revolution, the postindustrial era, the Information Age, and the age of economic globalization, to which the rise of the Internet contributed significantly. Each of these periods has had a different impact on ethics and what is considered acceptable business practice. Some economists believe there may even be a postglobalization phase arising from populist movements throughout the world that question the benefits of free trade and call for protective measures, like import barriers and export subsidies, to reassert national sovereignty.

In some ways, these protectionist reactions represent a return to the theories and policies that were popular in the age of mercantilism.

Unlike capitalism, which views wealth creation as the key to economic growth and prosperity, mercantilism relies on the theory that global wealth is static and, therefore, prosperity depends on extracting wealth or accumulating it from others. Under mercantilism, from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries, the exploration of newly opened markets and trade routes coincided with the impulse to colonize, producing an ethical code that valued acculturation by means of trade and often brute force. European powers extracted raw commodities like cotton, silk, diamonds, tea, and tobacco from their colonies in Africa, Asia, and South America and brought them home for production. Few questioned the practice, and the operation of business ethics consisted mainly of protecting owners’ interests.

During the Industrial Revolution and the postindustrial era, in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, business focused on the pursuit of wealth, the expansion of overseas markets, and the accumulation of capital. The goal was to earn as high a profit as possible for shareholders, with little concern for outside stakeholders. Charles Dickens (1812–1870) famously exposed the conditions of factory work and the poverty of the working class in many of his novels, as did the American writer Upton Sinclair (1878–1968). Although these periods witnessed extraordinary developments in science, medicine, engineering, and technology, the state of business ethics was perhaps best described by critics like Ida Tarbell (1857–1944), who said of industrialist John D. Rockefeller (1839–1937) ((Figure)), “Would you ask for scruples in an electric dynamo?”

With the advent of the Information and Internet ages in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, a code of professional conduct developed for the purpose of achieving goals through strategic planning.

In the past, ethical or normative rules were imposed from above to lead people toward right behavior, as the company defined it. Now, however, more emphasis is placed on each person at a firm embracing ethical standards and following those dictates to arrive at the appropriate behavior, whether at work or when off the clock.

The creation of human resources departments (increasingly now designated as human capital or human assets departments) is an outgrowth of this philosophy, because it reflects a view that humans have a unique value that ought not be reduced simply to the notion that they are instruments to be manipulated for the purposes of the organization. Millennia earlier, Aristotle referred to “living tools” in a similar but critical way.

Although one characteristic of the information age—access to information on an unprecedented scale—has transformed business and society (and some say made it more egalitarian), we must ask whether it also contributes to human flourishing, and to what extent business should concern itself with this goal.

A Matter of Time

What effect does time have on business ethics, and how is this effect achieved? If we accept that business today has two purposes—profitability and responsibility—we might assume that business ethics is in a much better position now than in the past to affect conduct across industries. However, much of the transformation of business over time has been the result of direct government intervention; one recent example is the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that followed the financial crisis of 2008. Yet, despite such regulation and increased management vigilance in the form of ethics training, compliance reporting, whistleblower programs, and audits, it is tempting to conclude that business ethics is in worse shape than ever. The Information Age and the Internet may even have facilitated unethical behavior by making it easier to move large sums of money around undetected, by enabling the spread of misinformation on a global scale, and by exposing the public to the theft and misuse of vast stores of personal data gathered by companies as diverse as Equifax and Facebook.

However, since the mercantile era, there has been a gradual increase in awareness of the ethical dimension of business. As we saw in the preceding chapter, businesses and the U.S. government have debated and litigated the role of corporate social responsibility throughout the twentieth century, first validating the rule of shareholder primacy in Dodge v. Ford Motor Company (1919) and then moving away from a strict interpretation of it in Shlensky v. Wrigley (1968). In Dodge v. Ford Motor Company (1919), the Michigan Supreme Court famously ruled that Ford had to operate in the interests of its shareholders as opposed to its employees and managers, which meant prioritizing profit and return on investment. This court decision was made even though Henry Ford had said, “My ambition is to employ still more men, to spread the benefits of this industrial system to the greatest possible number, to help them build up their lives and their homes. To do this we are putting the greatest share of our profits back in the business.”

By mid-century and the case of Shlensky v. Wrigley (1968), the courts had given boards of directors and management more latitude in determining how to balance the interests of stakeholders.

This position was confirmed in the more recent case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), which held that corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else.

Governmental regulation and legal interpretations have not been the only avenues of change over the past century. The growing influence of consumers has been another driving force in recent attempts by businesses to self-regulate and voluntarily comply with global ethical standards that ensure basic human rights and working conditions. The United Nations (UN) Global Compact is one of these standards. Its mission is to mobilize companies and stakeholders to create a world in which businesses align their strategies and operations with a set of core principles covering human rights, labor, the environment, and anticorruption practices. The Global Compact is a “voluntary initiative based on CEO commitments to implement universal sustainability principles and to undertake partnerships in support of UN goals.”

Of course, as a voluntary initiative, the initiative does not bind corporations and countries to the principles outlined in it.

Whenever we look at the ways in which our perception of ethical business practice changes over time, we should note that such change is not necessarily good or bad but rather a function of human nature and of the ways in which our views are influenced by our environment, our culture, and the passage of time. Many of the examples discussed thus far illustrate a gradual increase in social awareness due to the actions of individual leaders and the historical era in which they found themselves. This does not mean that culture is irrelevant, but that human nature exists and ethical inclination is part of that nature. Historical conditions may allow this nature to be expressed more or less fully. We might measure ethical standards according to the degree they allow human compassion to direct business practice or, at least, make it easier for compassion to hold sway. We might then consider ethics not just a nicety but a constitutive part of business, because it is an inherent human trait. This is a perspective Kant and Rawls might have agreed with. Ethical thinking over time should be measured, deliberate, and open to examination.

Business as Global Relationships

Global relationships teach us to be sensitive not just to other languages and customs but also to other people’s worldviews. A company looking to move its production to another country may be interested in setting up supply, distribution, and value chains that support human rights, worker safety, and equity for women, while the local culture is excited about the economic benefits it will gain from the company’s investment in employment and the local tax base and infrastructure. These goals need not be in conflict, but they must be integrated if the company is to reach an ethically sound agreement with the host country. Dialogue and openness are crucial to this process, just as they are in every other kind of relationship.

Geography affects a business’s relationship with almost any type of stakeholder, from stockholders and employees to customers, the government, and the environment. Hence the growing importance of localization, the process of adapting a product for non-native environments and languages, especially other nations and cultures. Such adaption often starts with language translation but may include customizing content or products to the tastes and consumption habits of the local market; converting currencies, dates, and other measurements to regional standards; and addressing community regulations and legal requirements.

Research has shown that successful leaders and organizations with global responsibilities “need to understand and exceed the leadership expectations in the cultures they are interacting with.”

In its study of leadership effectiveness and organizational behavior across cultures, the GLOBE leadership project of the Beedie School of Business at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada, found leader effectiveness is contextual and strongly connected to cultural and organizational values. The study also concluded that, although leaders learn to adapt to cultural expectations, they often have to exceed those expectations to be truly successful.

In other words, business has a role beyond merely reflecting the culture in which it operates.

One element of business culture you may not realize is based on local custom and culture is the notion of time. Unlike the notion of historical time discussed in the previous module, the concept of time in business—people’s approach to punctuality, for example—varies widely in different cultures. To put it in economic terms, all cultures share the resource of time, but they measure and use that resource very differently. These differences might significantly affect the foundation of any business relationships you may want to establish around the world. For this and many other reasons, basic cultural literacy must be at the forefront of any ethical system that governs business behavior.

Consider, for example, that in the United States, we might speak of “a New York minute,” “the nick of time,” “the eleventh hour,” and so on. Such expressions make sense in a culture where the enculturation process emphasizes competition and speed. But even among Western business cultures, conceptions of time can differ. For example, the Italian subito and the German sofort both refer to something happening “at once” or “straightaway,” but with different expectations about when the action, in fact, will take place. And some cultures do not measure the passage of time at all.

Generally, the farther east and south we travel from the United States, the more time becomes relational rather than chronological. In Kenya, tutaonana baadaye means “see you later,” although “later” could be any time, open to context and interpretation. The nomadic inhabitants of North Africa known as the Tuareg sit down to tea before discussing any business, and as a rule, the longer the time spent in preliminary conversation, the better. A Tuareg proverb has it that the first cup of tea is bitter like life, the second sweet like love, and the third gentle like death.

Compare this with the Western attitude that “time flies” and “time is money.” Finally, Westerners doing business in some English-speaking African countries have learned that if they want something immediately, they have to say “now now” as “now” by itself does not convey the desired sense of immediacy.

Another aspect of international business relationships is the question of personal space. In Nigeria, for example, standing either too close or too far from someone to whom you are speaking might be seen as impolite. In some cultures, touch is important in establishing connection, whereas in others it may be frowned upon. As a general rule, “contact” cultures—where people stand closer together when interacting, touch more often, and have more frequent direct eye contact—are found in South America, the Middle East, and southern Europe, while “noncontact” cultures—where eye contact and touching are less frequent, and there is less physical proximity during interactions—are in northern Europe, the Far East, and the United States. So, the seemingly innocuous gesture of a handshake to cement a new business relationship might be viewed very differently depending on where it occurs and who is shaking hands.

All of this speaks to the awareness and cultural sensitivity that must be exhibited by an ethical manager doing business in a region different from his or her own. Certain mistakes, particularly accidental ones and those not motivated by malicious design, will likely be forgiven. Still, a global ethical demeanor requires that we be as conscious as possible as to what constitutes courtesy wherever we find ourselves conducting business.

Religion and Ethics

A major factor in the difference that geography and culture make in our ethical standards is the influence of religious practice. For example, just as the current debate over the redistribution of goods and services has Christian roots, so the Industrial Revolution in England and northern Europe looked to Protestant Christianity in particular for the values of frugality, hard work, industriousness, and simplicity. Until the seventeenth century, religion and ethics were nearly inseparable. Many believed that people could not be persuaded to do the right thing without the threat of eternal damnation. The Enlightenment’s attempt to peel religion away from ethics was short-lived, with even Kant acknowledging the need to base morality on something beyond the rationalism of his time.

Religions are neither uniform nor monolithic, of course, nor are they unchanging over time. The core of Christianity, for instance, does not change, but its emphasis in any given period does. Moreover, the state or crown often worked side by side with the church in the past, choosing certain teachings over others to promote its own interests. This cooperation was evident during the era of mercantilism when the issue of personhood, or the privilege of having the freedom and capacity to make decisions and act morally, was hotly debated in the context of slavery, a practice that had been going on for centuries in the Christian West and the Islamic East. Although the church officially opposed slavery, the conquest of new lands was justified theologically as bringing salvation and civilization to populations considered savage and unsophisticated. Christianity was thought to save them from their pagan ways just as Islam and the message of the prophet saved unbelievers in the East. Behavioral norms for the clergy were founded and supported by the divine right of kings and the authority of religious tradition ((Figure)). Commerce and trade followed these norms.

By the time of the Industrial Revolution and postindustrial eras, Protestantism and its values of frugality, hard work, and simplicity (the “Protestant ethic”) had helped create a culture of individualism and entrepreneurship in the West, particularly in Great Britain and the United States. In fact, the Protestant work ethic, religion, and a commitment to hard work all are intertwined in the business history of both these countries. One example of this singular association is John D. Rockefeller, who, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, commanded the attention given today to Bill Gates and Warren Buffet as emblems of free enterprise.

No one was more convinced of the link between religious faith and success in business than Rockefeller, who clung to his Baptist faith from his early years until his death in 1937. The richest person of his age, Rockefeller earned his fortune as the founder and major shareholder of Standard Oil but always regarded his billions as a public trust rather than his personal prize. “As his fortune grew big enough to beggar the imagination, [Rockefeller] retained his mystic faith that God had given him money for mankind’s benefit . . . or else why had He lavished such bounty on him?”

Despite criticism, even from family members, Rockefeller donated enormous sums to many causes, especially medical research (in the form of Rockefeller University) and higher education. He financed the founding of the University of Chicago as an institution that would train students to pursue their professional and business interests under the guidance of Christian faith.

Still, as Ida Tarbell pointed out in her work, Rockefeller’s business ethics were not above reproach. In making his fortune, he pursued markedly Darwinian practices revealing a conviction in survival of the fittest. Later in life, and as his philanthropic motivation increased, his endowment of several charitable causes more fully reflected his belief as to how God wished him to dispose of a sizable portion of his wealth.

Of course, Rockefeller’s concept of stewardship—an attitude toward money and capital that stresses care and responsibility rather than pure utility—can be found across cultures and religions in various forms, and there are many similarities among the Judaic, Islamic, and Christian views of money and its use toward a greater end. All three of these religions teach that no harm should be done to others, nor should people be treated as means toward a material end like wealth. Yet what role does a religious concept of stewardship play in the ethics of the twenty-first century? The Enlightenment attempted to separate religion and ethics but could not. Are the two concepts inextricably linked? Might the business leaders of today succeed where the Enlightenment failed?

Although religious practices and cultural assumptions remain strongly in place, fewer people in the West today profess a religion than in the past.

Does this development affect the way you approach business relationships and conduct negotiations? Might we see a universal, secular code of ethics developing in place of religion? If so, how would it accommodate the differences across time, regions, and cultures discussed in this chapter? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1948, contains a list of basic human rights such as the right to life, liberty, due process, religion, education, marriage, and property. Business ethics will have to balance all these factors when adopting standards of conduct and local practices.

Absolute Values versus Relative Values

To put this question another way, is there a set of universal values that all can endorse? Are there “human values” that apply everywhere despite differences in time, place, and culture ((Figure))? If not, and if ethical standards are relative, are they worth having? Again, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a useful starting point for the way business can conduct itself. Let us look at how it is possible to align business with human rights in such a way that both profitability and responsibility are honored across the globe.

According to the Union Internationale des Avocats, an international, nongovernmental association of legal professionals, corruption “corrodes the democratic principles of accountability, equality, and transparency. It poses an extremely high cost to the citizenry, it saps the credibility of government and it places companies under an unbearable economic burden.”

The UN Convention Against Corruption has called corruption “an insidious plague” that exists everywhere and “hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a Government’s ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice and discouraging foreign aid and investment.”

Corruption appears to exist everywhere, so it would seem to require a persistent and consistent answer everywhere. Can business ethics provide one?

Business ethics exists on three levels: the individual, the organizational, and the societal. At the organizational and societal levels, laws, regulations, and oversight can go a long way toward curtailing illegal activity. Business ethics motivates managers to (1) meet legal and industry governing and reporting requirements and (2) shape corporate culture so that corrupt practices such as bribery, embezzlement, and fraud have no place in the organization. In the ideal case, the organization’s culture never allows the latter, because scandals not only damage reputations but they make companies and countries much less attractive to investors. Corruption is expensive: According to the World Economic Forum, no less than $2 trillion is lost each year worldwide as a result of corruption, a staggering waste not just of resources but of credibility for business in general.

At the individual level, when corruption takes place, it is a matter of conscience. Corruption can be defeated only by individuals acting in accordance with their conscience and being supported by systems and corporate culture that encourage such action. Transparency, whistleblower programs, ethics training, and modeling of appropriate behavior by upper management can create the conditions for employees to act ethically, but conscience is a personal phenomenon. So, although the work of national, regional, and international organizations can limit corruption through enforcement and the prosecution of cases (as was the case with the revelation of the so-called Panama Papers), corruption will not be reduced in any significant way unless efforts have been made to form individual conscience and teach practical ways to act on it.

Although ethical practice has been directly influenced by religion, as noted, ethics is not religion and religious belief is not a prerequisite for a commitment to business ethics. For example, although what constitutes ethical behavior in Islamic society is strongly linked to religious values, secular philosophers can endorse a highly developed commitment to commercial ethics, too. Furthermore, most religions have high ethical standards but do not address many of the problems faced in business. And although a good system of law incorporates ethical standards, the law can and sometimes does deviate from what is ethical. Finally, in the same vein, ethics is not science. The social and natural sciences provide data to make better ethical choices, but science cannot tell people what they ought to do (nor should it).

Absolute values do exist. Abstaining from cheating customers, defrauding clients, lying, and murder are fairly objective ethical values; the reason for making any exceptions must be carefully laid out. Ethical systems, whether utilitarian, rights based, or based on natural law and virtue ethics, are attempts to translate absolute values like these into workable solutions for people. From these systems has emerged a basic set of ethical norms for the business world.

Business Ethics and Compliance

A hallmark of any profession is the existence of ethical guidelines, often based on values like honesty, integrity, and objectivity. Organizational responsibility is fairly straightforward: Comply with applicable local, state, national, and international regulations. Compliance can be an immense task for industries like aerospace, pharmaceuticals, banking, and food production, due to the large number of employees involved, the certification of them that sometimes is necessary, and the requisite record keeping. Still, legal requirements are usually clear, as are the ways an organization can exceed them (as do, for example, companies such as Whole Foods, Zappos, and Starbucks). Personal responsibility is a different matter. It is either less clear what to do or harder to do it because of constant pressure to increase the organization’s profitability and the perception that “everybody else is doing it.”

In the United States, companies spend more than $70 billion annually on ethics training; worldwide, the figure is more than double that.

Unfortunately, in the United States, much of this money is spent on merely meeting the minimum requirements of compliance, so that if there is ever a problem with the Department of Justice or the Securities and Exchange Commission, the organization is insulated from criticism or liability because its employees have engaged in the recommended training. Federal Sentencing Guidelines for felonies and serious misdemeanors now carry mandatory prison time for individual executives who are convicted. These guidelines also are designed to help organizations with compliance and reporting, and they introduce seven steps toward that end: (1) create a Code of Ethics, (2) introduce high-level oversight, (3) place ethical people in positions of authority, (4) communicate ethics standards, (5) facilitate employee reporting of misconduct, (6) react and respond to instances of misconduct, and (7) take preventive steps.

Many organizations focus on the letter of the law so that they can claim “good faith” in their effort to create an ethical environment. However, middle managers and employees often complain their ethics training consists of passing a computerized sexual harassment or fraud program once a year but that nothing is done to address issues in a substantive way or to change the culture of the organization, even those that have experienced problems.

The focus still seems to be on organizational responsibility and compliance as opposed to individual responsibility and the formation of ethical conscience. We might argue that it is not the business of business to form people in their conscience, but the result of not doing so has become expensive for everyone concerned.

The damage done to an organization’s or government’s reputation due to scandal can be enormous and long lasting. The 2017 conviction for bribery and embezzlement of Lee Jae-yong, heir to the Samsung electronics empire, was part of a widespread corruption scandal that brought down the president of South Korea. Bribery was also at the heart of the FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) corruption scandal, in which soccer officials, marketing executives, and broadcasters were accused of racketeering, wire fraud, and money laundering by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2015. The Volkswagen emissions scandal also began in 2015, when the Environmental Protection Agency cited the German automaker for violating the Clean Air Act by cheating on emissions tests. To date, the fallout has cost the company nearly $30 billion in fines.

As the LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate) scandal, in which banks were manipulating rates to profit from trades, showed, ethical breakdowns often occur because systems fail or people make bad decisions, and sometimes both. In the case of LIBOR, the United Kingdom’s Serious Fraud Office determined there were inadequate systems of oversight in the setting of rates and that individual executives encouraged rate fixing, which led to the conviction of several traders, at least one of whom still maintains his innocence.

The result was a staggering $6 billion cumulative fine for the banks involved (i.e., Barclay’s, J.P. Morgan Chase, Citicorp, Royal Bank of Scotland, and Deutsche Bank).

If there is anything to be learned from these scandals, it is that organizations will succumb to ethics crises if they do not pay attention to their organizational culture and foster their employees’ growth as moral beings. This is even more important in industries like banking that are more susceptible to unethical behavior because of the great sums of money that change hands. Compliance is important, but business managers must attempt to go above and beyond to clearly model and enforce the highest standards of ethical behavior.

Normative Business Ethics

Normative business ethics should address systemic issues such as oversight and transparency as well as the character of individuals who make up the organization. Human flourishing may not be the immediate concern of business, but managers and employees have a significant impact on business performance. Giving employees common-sense advice and training in practical ways to counter unethical behavior, as well as ethical role models at the top of the organization, can be more effective than prevention. There are programs that do this, such as “Giving Voice to Values” at the Darden School of Business at the University of Virginia.

These programs are effective for their ability to help individuals act on their principles. As effective as they may be, however, they beg the larger question not of how someone can act on what their conscience tells them but how to determine what their conscience is telling them in the first place.

One model of ethical behavior, sometimes called the humanistic business model, may provide the answer for businesses that wish to achieve the dual goal of human flourishing and responsible profits. In this model, organizations focus on employees as a vital part of the operation and support them in their professional training, health care, education, family responsibilities, and even spiritual concerns. Leaders create positive relationships with stakeholders, including their employees, to cultivate investor goodwill and because they believe in the underlying values of trust and authenticity. The influence of positive psychology is evident, and there is much to commend in this kinder approach to the job of management that makes an effort to establish “sustainable human welfare.”

However, happy employees are one thing; the human flourishing identified by Aristotle and John Stuart Mill is quite another. What, then, is missing from humanistic business?

The problem is that if anything flourishes in this model, it is often the business rather than the employees. After all, free enterprise has the interests of the enterprise at heart. But employees are human beings first, which means any attempt to improve their welfare must begin by thinking of them as human beings rather than as employees. How can businesses do this?

One alternative is to put the humanities into business. Businesses currently rely heavily on data analytics, algorithms, and statistical analyses to drive decision-making. The use of these tools is often backed by social science research in consumer behavior, behavioral finance, and cognitive studies. But looking to the humanities to understand business is an opportunity to engage business in subjects and ideas that have a tremendous, if often overlooked, impact on people. After all, literature that has stood the test of time can provide tremendous insight into human behavior, and Homer or Shakespeare may be more relevant to contemporary executive leadership than a business seminar on how to motivate employees.

In fact, we could argue that anything that makes an impact on people should legitimately be within the scope of business. Richard DeGeorge (1933–) of the University of Kansas describes what adding the humanities to business education entails:

“Students do not need psychosociological jargon in their business interactions. They do need to understand people and their motives, to know how to read and judge character, and to have the ability to imagine themselves in another’s shoes, be they those of a competitor, a boss, or a subordinate. For those dedicated to the case method, novels, short stories, and plays offer an inexhaustible storehouse of riches, more detailed, subtle, and complete than most cases written up for courses.”

In DeGeorge’s humanities model, business ethics would not prepare students to do certain things, for which they likely will be trained by their employers, but to be certain persons. DeGeorge suggests that “a course in the philosophy of business would enable students to think about the foundations of business—its values, ends, purpose, and justification . . . philosophy could add a critical element to business education, an element that would keep business education always alive and prevent it from becoming an accepted, orthodox ideology.”

Finally, if normative business ethics is to recognize and, ultimately, be based on the individual, it must address another human trait: bias. Intellectual, emotional, and social biases affect all decision-making, including those of an ethical nature. Some bias is good, as in having a favorable disposition toward those who work hard in intellectually honest ways. Bias also rewards those who support and nurture the best elements of a culture, whether corporate, social, or political. But it becomes dangerous when people use it to blind themselves to the reality around them, reinforce hardened positions even in the face of contradictory evidence, and shirk their responsibility as moral beings.

An example of bias occurs when employees engage in unethical activity because it has been sanctioned by higher-ups. They abdicate personal responsibility by assigning blame elsewhere. However, no amount of rationalization of the fear of job loss, financial pressure, desire to please a supervisor, and the rest, can justify such behavior, because it diminishes moral agency, the self-awareness, freedom, and ability to make choices based on our perception of right and wrong. And such agency needs to be at the heart of business ethics. After all, we cannot make a commitment to serve customers, develop leaders, and improve life for all stakeholders unless there is freedom and moral agency, the necessary ingredients in establishing an attitude of concern, that is, respect for oneself and for others, including all appropriate stakeholders.

Ethical Decision-Making and Leadership in the Workplace

A contemporary corporation always owes an ethical, and in some cases legal, duty to employees to be a responsible employer. In a business context, the definition of this responsibility includes providing a safe workplace, compensating workers fairly, and treating them with a sense of dignity and equality while respecting at least a minimum of their privacy. Managers should be ethical leaders who serve as role models and mentors for all employees. A manager’s job, perhaps the most important one, is to give people a reason to come back to work tomorrow.

Good managers model ethical behavior. If a corporation expects its employees to act ethically, that behavior must start at the top, where managers hold themselves to a high standard of conduct and can rightly say, “Follow my lead, do as I do.” At a minimum, leaders model ethical behavior by not violating the law or company policy. One who says, “Get this deal done, I don’t care what it takes,” may very well be sending a message that unethical tactics and violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the law are acceptable. A manager who abuses company property by taking home office supplies or using the company’s computers for personal business but then disciplines any employee who does the same is not modeling ethical behavior. Likewise, a manager who consistently leaves early but expects all other employees to stay until the last minute is not demonstrating fairness.

Another responsibility business owes the workforce is transparency. This duty begins during the hiring process, when the company communicates to potential employees exactly what is expected of them. Once hired, employees should receive training on the company rules and expectations. Management should explain how an employee’s work contributes to the achievement of company-wide goals. In other words, a company owes it to its employees to keep them in the loop about significant matters that affect them and their job, whether good or bad, formal or informal. A more complete understanding of all relevant information usually results in a better working relationship.

That said, some occasions do arise when full transparency may not be warranted. If a company is in the midst of confidential negotiations to acquire, or be acquired by, another firm, this information must be kept secret until a deal has been completed (or abandoned). Regulatory statutes and criminal law may require this. Similarly, any internal personnel performance issues or employee criminal investigations should normally be kept confidential within the ranks of management.

Transparency can be especially important to workers in circumstances that involve major changes, such as layoffs, reductions in the workforce, plant closings, and other consequential events. These kinds of events typically have a psychological and financial impact on the entire workforce. However, some businesses fail to show leadership at the most crucial times. A leader who is honest and open with the employees should be able to say, “This is a very difficult decision, but one that I made and will stand behind and accept responsibility for it.” To workers, euphemisms such as “right sizing” to describe layoffs and job loss only sounds like corporate doublespeak designed to help managers justify, and thereby feel better (and minimize guilt), about their (or the company’s) decisions. An ethical company will give workers advance notice, a severance package, and assistance with the employment search, without being forced to do so by law. Proactive rather than reactive behavior is the ethical and just thing to do.

Historically, however, a significant number of companies and managers failed to demonstrate ethical leadership in downsizing, eventually leading Congress to take action. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act of 1989 has now been in effect for almost three decades, protecting workers and their families (as well as their communities) by mandating that employers provide sixty days’ advance notice of mass layoffs and plant closings ((Figure)). This law was enacted precisely because companies were not behaving ethically.

A report by the Cornell University Institute of Labor Relations indicated that, prior to passage of WARN, only 20 percent of displaced workers received written advance notice, and those who did received very short notice, usually a few days. Only 7 percent had two months’ notice of their impending displacement.

Employers typically preferred to get as many days of work as possible from their workforces before a mass layoff or closing, figuring that workers might reduce productivity or look for other jobs sooner if the company were transparent and open about its situation. In other words, when companies put their own interests and needs ahead of the workforce, we can hardly call that ethical leadership.

Other management actions covered by WARN include outsourcing, automation, and artificial intelligence in the workplace. Arguably, a company has an ethical duty to notify workers who might be adversely affected even if the WARN law does not apply, demonstrating that the appropriate ethical standard for management often exceeds the minimum requirements of the law. Put another way, the law sometimes is often slow to keep up with ethical reflection on best management practices.

Workplace Safety under the Occupational Safety and Health Act

The primary federal law ensuring physical safety on the job is the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), which was passed in 1970.

The goal of the law is to ensure that employers provide a workplace environment free of risk to employees’ safety and health, such as mechanical or electrical dangers, toxic chemicals, severe heat or cold, unsanitary conditions, and dangerous equipment. OSHA also refers to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which operates as a division of the Department of Labor and oversees enforcement of the law. This act created the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), which serves as the research institute for OSHA and enunciates appropriate standards for safety and health on the job.

Employer obligations under OSHA include the duty to provide a safe workplace free of serious hazards, to identify and eliminate health and safety hazards ((Figure)), to inform employees of hazards present on the job and institute training protocols sufficient to address them, to extend to employees protective gear and appropriate safeguards at no cost to them, and to publicly post and maintain records of worker injuries and OSHA citations.

OSHA and related regulations give employees several important rights, including the right to make a confidential complaint with OSHA that might result in an inspection of the workplace, to obtain information about the hazards of the workplace and ways to avoid harm, to obtain and review documentation of work-related illnesses and injuries at the job site, to obtain copies of tests done to measure workplace hazards, and protection against any employer sanctions as a consequence of complaining to OSHA about workplace conditions or hazards.

A worker who believes his or her OSHA rights are being violated can make an anonymous report. OSHA will then establish whether there are reasonable grounds for believing a violation exists. If so, OSHA will conduct an inspection of the workplace and report any findings to the employer and employee, or their representatives, including any steps needed to correct safety and health issues.

OSHA has the authority to levy significant fines against companies that commit serious violations. The largest imposed to date were against BP, the oil company responsible for the largest oil spill in U.S. history, discussed in the feature box on BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Government Regulation. OSHA took into account that seventeen workers died on BP’s rig, Deepwater Horizon, as a result of the initial explosion and fire in April 2010. Consequently, rig-worker safety was upgraded by statute. Total OSHA penalties issued to BP from 2005 to 2009 exceed $102 million.

Other large fines issued over the last thirty years include $2.8 million against Union Carbide for violations related to an explosion and fire at its plant in Seadrift, Texas, in March 1991; $8.2 million levied against Samsung Guam in the wake of numerous worksite accidents at Guam’s International Airport in 1995; and $8.7 million against Imperial Sugar in connection with an explosion at the company’s plant in Port Wentworth, Georgia, in February 2008.

More recently, OSHA fined the producers of The Walking Dead $12,675 (the maximum allowable for a single citation) in the wake of the death of a stuntman working on an episode of the television show in Georgia in July 2017.

These fines demonstrate that the agency is serious about trying to protect the environment and workers. However, for some, the question remains whether it is more profitable for a business to gamble on cutting corners on safety and pay the fine if caught than to spend the money ahead of time to make workplaces completely safe. OSHA fines do not really tell the whole story of the penalties for workplace safety issues. There can also be significant civil liability exposure and public relations damage, as well as worker compensation payments and adverse media coverage, making an unsafe workplace a very expensive risk on multiple levels.

A Workplace Free of Harassment

Employers have an ethical and a legal duty to provide a workplace free of harassment of all types. This includes harassment based on sex, race, religion, national origin, and any other protected status, including disability. Employees should not be expected to work in an atmosphere where they feel harassed, prejudiced against, or disadvantaged. The two complaints most frequently filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which strives to eliminate racial, gender, and religious discrimination in the workplace, are sexual harassment and racial harassment. Together, these categories made up two-thirds of all cases filed during 2017. More than thirty thousand complaints of sexual, gender, racial, or creedal harassment are filed each year, illustrating the frequency of the problem.

The EEOC enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (CRA) of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination including sexual harassment.

(As discussed elsewhere in the text, the CRA also protects employees from discrimination based on race, gender, religion, and national origin.) According to EEOC guidelines, it is unlawful to sexually harass a person because of that person’s sex, either through explicit offers in exchange for sexual favors (known as quid pro quo) or through actions at a broader more systemic level that create a “hostile working environment.” Sexual harassment includes unwelcome touching, requests for sexual favors, any other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature, offensive remarks based on a person’s sex, and off-color jokes. The harasser can be the victim’s supervisor (which creates company liability the first time it happens) or a peer coworker (which usually creates liability after the second time it happens, assuming the company had notice of the first occurrence). It can even be someone who is not an employee, such as a client or customer, and the law applies to men and women. Thus, the victim and the harasser both can be either a woman or a man, and offenses include both opposite-sex and same-sex harassment.

Although the law does not prohibit mild teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not serious, harassment does become illegal when, according to the law, it is so frequent “that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it is so severe that it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).”

It is management’s responsibility to prevent harassment through education, training, and enforcement of a policy against it, and failure to do so will result in legal liability for the company.

Two relatively recent examples of workplace environments that descended into the worst excesses of sexist and other inappropriate behavior occurred at American Apparel and Uber. In both cases, principal leaders were mostly men who engaged in ruthless, no-holds-barred management practices that benefitted only those subordinates who most resembled the leaders themselves. Such environments may thrive for a while, but the long-term consequences can include criminal violations that produce hefty fines and imprisonment, bankruptcy, and radical upheaval in corporate management. At American Apparel and at Uber, these events resulted in the dismissal of each company’s CEO, Dov Charney (who also was the founder of the company) and Travis Kalanick (who was one of the corporation’s founders), respectively.

In 2017 and 2018, a renewed focus on sexual harassment in the workplace and other inappropriate sexual behaviors brought a stream of accusations against high-profile men in politics, entertainment, sports, and business. They included entertainment industry mogul Harvey Weinstein; Pixar’s John Lasseter; on-air personalities Matt Lauer and Charlie Rose; politicians such as Roy Moore, John Conyers, and Al Franken; and Uber’s Kalanick, to name just a few ((Figure)).

The workplace harassment problem has continued for many decades despite the EEOC’s enforcement efforts; it remains to be seen whether new public scrutiny will prompt a permanent change in the workplace. The Ford Motor Company serves as a relevant example. Decades after Ford tried to address sexual harassment at two Chicago-area assembly plants, the abuse at the plants evidently continues. According to legal action filed with the EEOC in the early 1990s, conditions for women working at some Ford auto assembly plants were hostile. Female employees alleged they were groped, that men pressed against them and simulated sex acts, and that men even masturbated in front of them. They further asserted that men would routinely make crude comments about the figures of female coworkers, and graffiti depictions of penises were everywhere—carved into tables, spray painted onto floors, and scribbled on walls. Managers and floor supervisors were accused of giving women better assignments in return for sex and punishing those who refused.

In the 1990s, lawsuits and an EEOC action led to a $22 million settlement in which Ford admitted to widespread misconduct and committed to crack down on the offenders. However, it seems Ford still did not learn its lesson, or, after almost three decades, the memory dimmed and they slipped right back into old habits. In August 2017, the EEOC reached a new $10 million settlement with Ford for sexual and racial harassment at the two Chicago plants. Though Ford did not admit any wrongdoing in the recent settlement, it appears that neither millions of dollars in earlier damages nor promises by management led to any serious change. The New York Times interviewed some of the women at Ford,

and Sharon Dunn, who was a party of the first case and is now again a party of the second, said, “For all the good that was supposed to come out of what happened to us, it seems like Ford did nothing. If I had that choice today, I wouldn’t say a damn word.”

A Satisfied Workforce

Although the workplace should be free of harassment and intimidation of every sort, and management should provide a setting where all employees are treated with dignity and respect, ideally, employers should go much further.

Most people spend at least one-third and possibly as much as one-half of their waking hours at work. Management, therefore, should make work a place where people can thrive, that fosters an atmosphere in which they can be engaged and productive. Workers are happier when they like where they work and when they do not have to worry about childcare, health insurance, or being able to leave early on occasion to attend a child’s school play, for example. For our grandparents’ generation, a good job was dependably steady, and employees tended to stay with the same employer for years. There were not many extras other than a secure job, health insurance, and a pension plan. However, today’s workers expect these traditional benefits and more. They may even be willing to set aside some salary demands in exchange for an environment featuring perquisites (or “perks”; nonmonetary benefits) such as a park-like campus, an on-the-premises gym or recreational center, flextime schedules, on-site day care and dry cleaning, a gourmet coffee house or café, and more time off. This section will explore how savvy managers establish a harmonious, compassionate workplace while still setting expectations of top performance.

Happy employees are more productive and more focused, which enhances their performance and leads to better customer treatment, fewer sick days, fewer on-the-job accidents, and less stress and burnout. They are more focused on their work, more creative, and better team players, and they are more likely to help others and demonstrate more leadership qualities. How, then, does an employer go about the process of making workers happy? Research has identified several pitfalls that managers should avoid if they want to have a good working relationship with their direct reports and, indeed, all their employees.

One is making employees feel like they are just employees. To be happy at work, employees, instead, need to feel like they know each other, have friends at work, are valued, and belong. Another pitfall is remaining aloof or above your employees. Taking an authentic interest in who they are as people really does matter. When surveys ask employees, “Do you feel like your boss cares about you?,” too frequently the answer is no. One way to show caring and interest is to recognize when employees are making progress; another might be to take a personal interest in their lives and families. Asking employees to share their ideas and implementing these ideas whenever possible is another form of acknowledgement and recognition. Pause and highlight important milestones people achieve, and ensure that they feel their contributions are noticed by saying thank you.

Good advice to new managers includes making work fun. Allow people to joke around as appropriate so that when mistakes occur they can find humor in the situation and move forward without fixating simply on the downside. Celebrate accomplishments. Camaraderie and the right touch of humor can build a stronger workplace culture. Encourage exercise and sleep rather than long work hours, because those two factors improve employees’ health, focus, attention, creativity, energy, and mood. In the long run, expecting or encouraging people to regularly work long hours because leaving on time looks bad is counterproductive to the goals of a firm. Accept that employees need to disengage sometimes. People who feel they are always working because their management team expects they must remain in touch via e-mail or mobile phone can become tremendously stressed. To combat this, companies should not expect their workers to be available around the clock, and workers should not feel compelled to be so available. Rather, employers should allow employees to completely disengage regularly so they can focus on their friends and families and tend to their own personal priorities. By way of international comparison, according to a recent article in Fortune, Germany and France have actually gone as far as banning work-related e-mails from employers on the weekends, which is a step in the right direction, even if only because disconnecting from work is now mandated by law.

Employers must decide exactly how to spend the resources they have allocated to labor, and it can be challenging to make the right decision about what to provide workers ((Figure)). Should managers ask employees what they want? Benchmark the competition? Follow the founder’s or the board’s recommendations? How does a company make lifestyle benefits fair and act ethically when there is backlash against family-friendly policies from people who do not have their own families? Unlike the purchase of raw materials, utilities, and other budgetary items, which is driven primarily by cost and may present only a few choices, management’s offering of employee benefits can present dozens of options, with costs ranging from minimal to very high. Work-at-home programs may actually cost the company very little, for example, whereas health insurance benefits may cost significantly more. In many other industrialized countries, the government provides (i.e., subsidizes) benefits such as health insurance and retirement plans, so a company does not have to weigh the pros and cons (i.e., do a cost-benefit analysis) of what to offer in this area. In the United States, employee benefits become part of a cost-benefit analysis, especially for small and mid-sized companies. Even larger companies today are debating what benefits to offer.

Management has to decide not only how much money to spend on benefits and perks but precisely what to spend the money on. Another decision is what benefit choices management should allow each employee to make, and which choices to make for the workforce as a whole. The best managers communicate regularly with their workforce; as a result, they are more likely to know (and be able inform top management about) the types of perks most desired and most likely to attract and keep good workers. (Figure) shows that men and women do not always want the same benefits, which presents a challenge for management. For instance, many women place about twice as much value as many men do on day care (23%–11%) and on paid family leave (24%–14%). Also valued more highly generally by women than by men are better health insurance, work-from-home options, and flexible hours, whereas more men value an on-site gym and free coffee more than women typically do.

Age and generation also play a role in the types of perks that employees value. Workers aged eighteen to thirty-five rank career advancement opportunities (32%) and work-life balance (33%) as most important to them at work. However, 42 percent of workers older than thirty-five say work-life balance is the most important feature. This is likely because Generation X (born in the years 1965–1980) place a high value on opportunities for work-life balance, although, like Baby Boomers (born in the years 1946–1964), they also value salary and a solid retirement plan. On the other hand, Millennials (born in the years 1981–1997) appreciate flexibility: having a choice of benefits, paid time off, the ability to telecommute, flexible hours, and opportunities for professional development.

The menu of benefits and perks thus depends on several variables, such as what the company can afford, whether employees value perks over the more direct benefit of higher pay, what the competition offers, what the industry norm is, and the company’s geographic location. For example, Google is constantly searching for ways to improve the health, well-being, and morale of its “Googlers.” The company is famous for offering unusual perks, like bicycles and electric cars to get staff around its sprawling California campus. Additional benefits are generous paid parental leave for new parents, on-site childcare centers at one location, paid leaves of absence to pursue further education with tuition covered, and on-site physicians, nurses, and health care. Other perks are gaming centers, organic gardens, eco-friendly furnishings, a pets-at-work policy, meditation and mindfulness training, and travel insurance and emergency assistance on personal and work-related travel. On the death of a Google employee, his or her spouse or domestic partner is compensated with a check for 50 percent of the employee’s salary each year for a decade. In addition, all a deceased employee’s stock options vest immediately for the surviving spouse or domestic partner. Furthermore, a deceased employee’s children receive $1000 per month until they reach the age of nineteen, or until the age of twenty-three if they are full-time students.

In addition to offering benefits and perks, managers can foster a healthy workplace by applying good “people skills” as well. Managers who are respectful, open, transparent, and approachable can achieve two goals simultaneously: a workforce that is happier and also one that is more productive. Good management requires constant awareness that each team member is also an individual working to meet both personal and company goals. Effective managers act on this by regularly meeting with employees to recognize strengths, identify constructive ways to improve on weaknesses, and help workers realize collective and individual goals. Ethical businesses and good managers also invest in efforts like performance management and employee training and development. These commitments call for giving employees frequent and honest feedback about what they do well and where they need improvement, thereby enabling them to develop the skills they need, not only to succeed in the current job but to move on to the next level. Fostering teamwork by treating people fairly and acknowledging their strengths is also an important responsibility of management. Ethical managers, therefore, demonstrate most, if not all, of the following qualities: cultural awareness, positive attitude, warmth and empathy, authenticity, emotional intelligence, patience, competence, accountability, respectful, and honesty.

Economic Data as an Indicator of Fair Wages

The Pew Research Center indicates that over the thirty-five years between 1980 and 2014, the inflation-adjusted hourly wages of most middle-income American workers were nearly stagnant, rising just 6 percent, or an average of less than 0.2 percent, per year.

(The Pew Research Center defines middle-class adults as those living in households with disposable incomes ranging from 65 percent to 200 percent of the national median, which is approximately $60,000.) The data collected by the Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank, show the same stagnant trend.

Contrast this picture with the wages of high-income workers, which rose 41 percent over the same years. Many economists, political leaders, and even business leaders admit that increasing wage and wealth disparities are not a sustainable pattern if the U.S. economy is to succeed in the long term.

Wage growth for all workers must be fair, which, in most cases, means higher wages for low- and middle-income workers. (Figure) presents evidence of the growth of the income gap in the United Sates since the start of the great recession in 2007.

No reasonable person, regardless of profession or political party, would dispute that employees are entitled to a fair or just wage. Rather, it is in the calculation of a fair wage that the debate begins. Economists, sociologists, psychologists, and politicians all have opinions about this, as have most workers. Some of the factors that feature in calculations are federal and state minimum-wage standards, the cost of living, and the rate of inflation. Should a fair wage include enough money to raise a family, too, if the wage earner is the sole or principal support of a family?

(Figure) shows the growth, or lack of growth, in the buying power of a minimum-wage earner since 1940. Compare the twenty-year period of 1949 through 1968 with the fifty-year period from 1968 through 2017. The difference has created a sobering reality for many workers. In the nearly six decades since 1960, the inflation-adjusted real minimum wage actually declined by 23 percent. That means minimum-wage workers did not even break even; the value of their wages declined over fifty years, meaning they have effectively worked half a century with no raise. In the following chart, nominal wage represents the actual amount of money a worker earns per hour; real wage represents the nominal wage adjusted for inflation. We consider real wages because nominal wages do not take into account changes in prices and, therefore, do not measure workers’ actual purchasing power.

One positive development for minimum-wage workers is that state governments have taken the lead in what was once viewed primarily as a federal issue. Today, most states have a higher minimum hourly wage than the federal minimum of $7.25. States with the highest minimum hourly wages are Washington ($11.50), California and Massachusetts ($11.00), Arizona and Vermont ($10.50), New York and Colorado ($10.40), and Connecticut ($10.00). Some cities have even higher minimum hourly wages than under state law; for example, San Francisco and Seattle are at $15.00. As of the end of 2017, twenty-nine states had higher minimum hourly wages than the federal rate, according to Bankrate.com ((Figure)).

Unfair Wages: The Gender Pay Gap

Even after all possible qualifiers have been added, it remains true that women earn less than men. Managers sometimes offer multiple excuses to justify pay inequities between women and men, such as, “Women take time off for having babies” or “Women have less experience,” but these usually do not explain away the differences. The data show that a woman with the same education, experience, and skills, doing the same job as a man, is still likely to earn less, at all levels from bottom to top. According to a study by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, even women in top positions such as CEO, vice president, and general counsel often earn only about 80 percent of what men with the same job titles earn.

Data from the EEOC over the five years from 2011 through 2015 for salaries of senior-level officials and managers (defined by the EEOC as those who set broad policy and are responsible for overseeing execution of those policies) show women in these roles earned an average of about $600,000 per year, compared with their male counterparts, who earned more than $800,000 per year.

That $200,000 difference amounts to a wage gap of about 35 percent each year.

The same is true in mid-level jobs as well. In a long-term study of compensation in the energy industry, researchers looked at the job of a land professional—who negotiates with property owners to lease land on which the oil companies then drill wells—and found evidence of women consistently getting paid less than men for doing the same job. Median salaries were compared for male and female land professionals with similar experience (one to five years) and educational background (bachelor’s degree), and men earned $7000 more per year than their female counterparts.

Doesn’t the law require men and women to be paid the same? The answer is yes and no. Compensation discrimination has been illegal for more than fifty years under a U.S. law called the Equal Pay Act, passed in 1963. But the problem persists. Women earned about 60 percent of what men earned in 1960, and that value had risen to only 80 percent by 2016. Given these historic rates, women are not projected to reach pay equity until at least 2059, with projections based on recent trends predicting dates as late as 2119.

These are aggregate data; thus, they include women and men with the same job, or similar jobs, or jobs considered to fall in the same general category, but the data do not compare the salary of a secretary to that of a CEO, which would be an unrealistic comparison.

Equal pay under the law means equal pay for the “same” job, but not for the “equivalent” job. Those companies wishing to avoid strict compliance with the law may use several devices to justify unequal pay, including using slightly different job titles, slightly different lists of job duties, and other techniques that lead to different pay for different employees doing essentially the same job. Women have taken employers to court for decades, only to find their lawsuits unsuccessful because proving individual compensation discrimination is very difficult, especially given that multiple factors can come into play in compensation decisions. Sometimes class-action lawsuits have been more successful, but even then plaintiffs often lose.

Can anything be done to achieve equal pay? One step would be to pass a new law strengthening the rules on equal pay, but two recent attempts to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act (S.84, H.R.377) and the Fair Pay Act (S.168, H.R.438) narrowly failed.

These or similar bills, if ever enacted into law, would significantly reduce wage discrimination against those who work in similar job categories by establishing equal pay for “equivalent” work, rather than the current law which uses the term “same” job. The idea of pay equivalency is closely related to comparable worth, a concept that has been put into action on a limited basis over the years, but never on a large scale. Comparable worth holds that workers should be paid on the basis of the worth of their job to the organization. Equivalent work and comparable worth can be important next steps in the path to equal pay, but they are challenging to implement because they require rethinking the entire basis for pay decisions.

If a woman’s starting salary for the first job of her career is less than that of a man, the initial difference, even if small, tends to cause a systemic, career-long problem in terms of pay equity. Researchers at Temple University and George Mason University found that if a new hire gets $5000 more than another worker hired at the same time, the difference is significantly magnified over time. Assuming an average annual pay increase of 5 percent, an employee starting with a $55,000 salary will earn at least $600,000 more over a forty-year career than an employee who starts an equivalent job with a $50,000 salary. This significantly affects many personal decisions, including retirement, because, all other things equal, a lower-paid woman will have to work three years longer than a man to earn the same amount of money over the course of her career.

Part of the reason that initial pay disparity is heightened over a career is that when a worker changes jobs, the new employer usually asks what the employee was making in his or her last job and uses that as a baseline for pay in the new job. To combat the problem of history-based pay, which often hurts women, eight states (and numerous municipalities) in the United States now ban employers from asking job applicants to name their last salary.

Although this restriction will not solve the entire problem, it could have a positive effect if it spreads nationally. In a survey by the executive search firm Korn Ferry, forty-six of one hundred companies said they usually comply with the legal requirements in force in the strictest of the locations in which they operate, meaning workers in states without this law might not be asked about their salary history during new-job negotiations either.

Experiments in Compensation

Whether we are discussing fair wages, minimum wages, or equal wages, the essence of the debate often boils down to ethics. What should people get paid, who should determine that, and should managers and upper management do only what is required by law or go above and beyond if that means doing what they think is right? Organizational pay structures are set by a variety of methods, including internal policies, the advice of outside compensation consultants, and external data, such as market salaries.

An innovative compensation decision in Seattle may provide some insight. In 2011, a young man earning $35,000 a year told his boss at Gravity, a credit-card payments business, that his earnings were not sufficient for a decent life in expensive Seattle. The boss, Dan Price, who cofounded the company in 2004, was somewhat surprised as he had always taken pride in treating employees well. Nevertheless, he decided his employee was right. For the next three years, Gravity gave every employee a 20 percent annual raise. Still, profit continued to outgrow wages. So Price announced that over the next three years, Gravity would phase in a minimum salary of $70,000 for all employees. He reduced his own salary from $1 million to $70,000, to demonstrate the point and help fund it. The following week, five thousand people applied for jobs at Gravity, including a Yahoo executive who took a pay cut to transfer to a company she considered fun and meaningful to work for.

Price’s decision started a national debate: How much should people be paid? Since 2000, U.S. productivity has increased 22 percent, yet inflation-adjusted median wages have increased only 2 percent. That means a larger share of capitalism’s rewards are going to shareholders and top executives (who already earn an average of three hundred times more than typical workers, up from seventy times more just a decade ago), and a smaller share is going to workers. If Gravity profits while sharing the benefits of capitalism more broadly, Price’s actions will be seen as demonstrating that underpaying the workforce hurts employers. If it fails, it may look like proof that companies should not overpay.

Price recognized that low starting salaries were antithetical to his values and felt that struggling employees would not be motivated to maintain the high quality that made his company successful with that compensation. He calls the $70,000 minimum wage an ethical and moral imperative rather than a business strategy, and, though it will cost Gravity about $2 million per year, he has ruled out price increases and layoffs. More than half the initial cost was offset by his own pay cut, the rest by profit. Revenue continues to grow at Gravity, along with the customer base and the workforce. Currently, the firm has a retention rate of 91 percent.

Yet Price says managers’ scorecards should measure purpose, impact, and service, as much as profit.

Michael Wheeler, a professor at Harvard Business School who teaches a course called “Negotiation and The Moral Leader,” recently discussed the aftermath of Dan Price’s decision at Gravity. He interviewed other entrepreneurs about their plans for creative compensation to help develop a happy and motivated workforce, and it appears that some other companies are taking notice of how successful Gravity has been since Price made the decision to pay his workers more.

One of these entrepreneurs was Megan Driscoll, the CEO of Pharmalogics Recruiting, who, after hearing Dan Price speak to a group of executives, was inspired to raise the starting base pay of her employees by 33 percent. When Driscoll put her plan to work, her business had forty-six employees and $6.7 million in revenue. A year later, staff and revenues had jumped to seventy-two and $15 million, respectively. Driscoll points to data showing her people are working harder and smarter after the pay raise than before. There has been a 32 percent increase in clients, and the client retention rate doubled to 80 percent.

Stephan Aarstol, CEO of Tower Paddleboards, wanted to give his workers a raise, but his company did not have the cash. Instead, Aarstol boldly cut the work day to five hours from the ten hours most employees had been working. Essentially that doubled their pay, and as a result, he says, employee focus and engagement have skyrocketed, as have company profits.

Managers must carefully balance the short term, such as quarterly profits, versus long-term sustainability as a successful company. This requires recognizing the value of work that each person contributes and devising a fair, and sometimes creative, compensation plan.

Organized Labor

Americans’ longstanding belief in individualism makes some managers wonder why employees would want or need to be represented by a labor union. The answer is, for the same reasons a CEO wants to be represented by an attorney when negotiating an employment contract, or that an entertainer wants to be represented by an agent. Unions act as the agent/lawyer/negotiator for employees during collective bargaining, a negotiation process aimed at getting management’s agreement to a fair employment contract for members of the union. Everyone wants to be successful in any important negotiation, and people often turn to professionals to help them in such a situation.

However, in the United States, as elsewhere around the globe, the concept of worker organization has been about more than simply good representation. Unionization and worker rights have often been at the core of debates related to class economics, political power, and ethical values. There are legitimate points on each side of the union debate ((Figure)).

The value of unions is a topic that produces significant disagreement. Historically, unions have attained many improvements for workers in terms of wages and benefits, standardized employment practices, labor protections (e.g., child labor laws), workplace environment, and on-the-job safety. Nevertheless, sometimes unions have acted in their own interests to sustain their own existence, without primary concern for the workers they represent.

The history of the worker movement (summarized in the video in the following Link to Learning) reveals that in the first half of the twentieth century, wages were abysmally low, few workplace safety laws existed, and exploitive working conditions allowed businesses to use child labor. Unions stepped in and played an important role in leveling the playing field by representing the interests of the workers. Union membership grew to a relatively high level (33% of wage and salary workers) in the 1950s, and unions became a force in politics. However, their dominance was relatively short-lived, not least because in the 1960s, the federal government started to enact employment laws that codified many of the worker protections unions had championed. In the 1980s and 1990s, the U.S. economy gradually evolved from manufacturing, where unions were strong, to services, where unions were not as prevalent. The service sector is more difficult to organize, due to a variety of factors such as the historical absence of unions in the sector, workers’ widely differing work functions and schedules, challenging organizational status, and white-collar bias against unions.

These developments, along with the appearance of state right-to-work laws, have led to a decline in unions and their membership. Right-to-work laws give workers the option of not joining the union, even at companies where the majority has voted to be represented by a union, resulting in lower membership. Right-to-work laws attempt to counter the concept of a union shop or closed shop, which requires that all new hires automatically be enrolled in the labor union appropriate to their job function and that union dues automatically be deducted from their pay.

Some question the fairness of right-to-work laws, because they allow those who do not join the union to get the same pay and benefits as those who do join and who pay unions dues for their representation. On the other hand, right-to-work laws provide workers the right of choice; those who do not want to join a union are not forced to do so. Those who do not choose to join may end up having a strained relationship with union workers, however, when a union-mandated strike occurs. Some non-union members, and even union members, elect to cross the picket line and continue to work. Traditionally, these “scabs,” as they are derisively labeled by unions, have faced both overt and subtle retaliation at the hands of their coworkers, who prioritize loyalty to the union.

Twenty-eight states have right-to-work laws ((Figure)). Notice that many right-to-work states, such as Michigan, Missouri, Indiana, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi, are among the top ten states where automobiles are manufactured and unions once were strong.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, total union membership in the United States dropped to 20 percent of the workforce in 1980; by 2016, it was down to about half that ((Figure)).

Public sector (government) workers have a relatively high union membership rate of 35 percent, more than five times that of private-sector workers, which is at an all-time low of 6.5 percent. White-collar workers in education and training, as well as first responders such as police and firefighters now have some of the highest unionization rates, also 35 percent. Among states, New York continues to have the highest union membership rate at 23 percent, whereas South Carolina has the lowest, at slightly more than 1 percent.

Codetermination is a workplace concept that goes beyond unionization to embrace shared governance, in which management and workers cooperate in decision-making and workers have the right to participate on the board of directors of their company. Board-level representation by employees is widespread in European Union countries. Most codetermination laws apply to companies over a certain size. For example, in Germany, they apply to companies with more than five hundred employees.

The labor union movement never has been quite as strong in the United States as in Europe—the trade-union movement began in Europe and remains more vibrant there even today—and codetermination is thus not common in U.S. companies ((Figure)).

Codetermination has worked relatively well in some countries. For example, in Germany, workers, managers, and the public at large support the system, and it has often resulted in workers who are more engaged and have a real voice in their workplaces. Management and labor have cooperated, which, in turn, has led to higher productivity, fewer strikes, better pay, and safer working conditions for employees, which is a classic win-win for both sides.

Pay and Productivity in the United States

Some managers, politicians, and even members of the general public believe unions are a big part of the reason that U.S. companies have difficulty competing in the global economy. The conservative think tank Heritage Foundation conducted a study that concluded unions may be responsible, in part, for a slower work process and reduced productivity.

However, multiple other studies indicate that U.S. productivity is up.

Productivity in the United States increased 74 percent in the period 1973 to 2016, according to the OECD. In global productivity rankings, most studies indicate the United States ranks quite high, among the top five or six countries in the world and number two on the list compiled by the OECD ((Figure)).

During the same period as the productivity gains discussed in the preceding paragraph, 1973 to 2016, wages for U.S. workers increased only 12 percent. In other words, productivity has grown six times more than pay. Taken together, these facts mean that American workers, union members or not, should not shoulder the blame for competitive challenges faced by U.S. companies. Instead, they are a relative bargain for most companies. (Figure) compares productivity and pay and demonstrates the growing disparity between the two, based on data collected by the Economic Policy Institute.

Is Management Compensation Fair?

We gain yet another perspective on labor by looking at management compensation relative to that of employees. Between 1978 and 2014, inflation-adjusted CEO pay increased by almost 1,000 percent in the United States, while worker pay rose 11 percent.

A popular way to compare the fairness of a company’s compensation system with that in other countries is the widely reported pay ratio, which measures how many times greater CEO pay is than the wages for the average employee.

The average multiplier effect in the United States is in the range of three hundred. This means that CEO pay is, on average, three hundred times as high as the pay of the average worker in the same company. In the United Kingdom, the multiplier is twenty-two; in France, it is fifteen; and in Germany, it is twelve.

The 1965 U.S. ratio was only twenty to one, which raises the question, why and how did CEO pay rise so dramatically high in the United States compared with the rest of the world? Are CEOs in the United States that much better than CEOs in Germany or Japan? Do American companies perform that much better? Is this ratio fair to investors and employees? A large part of executive compensation is in the form of stock options, which frequently are included in the calculation of an executive’s salary and benefits, rather than direct salary. However, this, in turn, raises the question of whether all or a portion of the general workforce should also share in some form of stock options.

Everyone wants to be paid fairly for their work. Whether CEO or administrative assistant, engineer or assembly-line worker, we naturally look out for our own best interest. Thus, management compensation is a topic that often causes resentment among the rank and file, especially when organized workers go on strike. From the employee viewpoint, the question is why management often wants to hold the line when it comes to everyone’s wages but their own.

Legal and Ethical Aspects of Electronic Monitoring

Monitored workstations, cameras, microphones, and other electronic monitoring devices permit employers to oversee virtually every aspect of employees’ at-work behavior ((Figure)). Technology also allows employers to monitor every aspect of computer use by employees, such as downloads of software and documents, Internet use, images displayed, time a computer has been idle, number of keystrokes per hour, words typed, and the content of e-mails. According to a survey by the American Management Association, 48 percent of employers used a form of video monitoring in the workplace, and 67 percent monitored employee Internet use. In 30 percent of the organizations responding to the survey, this electronic monitoring had ultimately led to an employee’s termination.

The laws and regulations governing electronic monitoring are somewhat indirect and inconsistent. Very few specific federal statutes directly regulate private employers when it comes to broad workplace privacy issues. However, monitoring is subject to various state rules under both statutory and common law, and sometimes federal and state constitutional provisions as well. The two primary areas of the law related to workplace monitoring are a federal statute called the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) and various state common law protections against invasion of privacy.

Although the ECPA may appear to prohibit an employer from monitoring its employees’ oral, wire, and electronic communications, it contains two big exceptions that weaken its protection of employees’ rights. One is the business purpose exception. This allows employers—on the basis of legitimate business purposes—to monitor electronic and oral communications, and employers generally assert a legitimate business purpose to be present. The other widely used exception is the consent exception, which allows employers to monitor employee communications provided employees have given their consent. According to the Society for Human Resource Management, the ECPA definition of electronic communication applies to the electronic transmission of communications but not to their electronic storage. Therefore, courts have distinguished between monitoring electronic communications such as e-mail during transmission and viewing e-mails in storage. Viewing emails during transmission is broadly allowed, whereas viewing stored e-mail is considered similar to searching an employee’s private papers and thus is not routinely allowed under the ECPA unless certain circumstances apply (e.g., the e-mails are stored in the employer’s computer systems).

In general, it is legal for a company to monitor the use of its own property, including but not limited to computers, laptops, and cell phones. According to the ECPA, an employer-provided computer system is the property of the employer, and when the employer provides employees with a laptop they can take home, it likely violates no laws when it monitors everything employees do with that computer, whether business-related or personal. The same is true of an employer-provided cell phone or tablet, and always true when an employer gives employees notice of a written policy regarding electronic monitoring of equipment supplied by the company. Generally, the same is not true of equipment owned by the employee, such as a personal cell phone.

However, an important distinction is based on the issue of consent. The consent provision in the ECPA is not limited to business communications only; therefore, a company might be able to assert the right to monitor personal electronic communications if it can show employee consent (although this is very likely to worry employees, as discussed in the next section). Another consideration is whose e-mail server is being used. The ECPA and some state laws generally make it illegal for employers to intercept private e-mail by using an employee’s personal log-on/user ID/password information.

Although the ECPA and National Labor Relations Act are both federal laws, individual states are free to pass laws that impose greater limitations, and several states have done so. Some require employers to provide employees advance written notice that specifies the types or methods of monitoring to which they will be subjected. Examples of state laws creating some degree of protection for workers include laws in California and Pennsylvania that require consent of both parties before any conversation can be monitored or recorded.

Employees can bring common law privacy claims to challenge employer monitoring. (Common laws are those based on prior court decisions rather than on legislatively enacted statutes.) To prevail on a common law claim of invasion of privacy, which is a tort, the employee must demonstrate a right to privacy with respect to the information being monitored. Several state constitutions, such as those in Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina, and California, expressly provide citizens a right to privacy, which may protect employees with respect to monitoring of their personal electronic information and personal communication in the workplace.

One additional regulatory consideration applicable to electronic monitoring is whether the company’s workforce is unionized. The National Labor Relations Board, the federal labor law agency, has ruled that the video surveillance of any portion of the workplace is a condition of employment subject to collective bargaining and must be agreed to by the union before implementation, so employees have notice. If a workplace is not unionized (the majority are not), then this federal regulation requiring notice does not apply, and as stated previously in this chapter, if there is any protection at all, it would have to be given by state regulation (which is rare in the private [nongovernmental] sector).

What Constitutes a Reasonable Monitoring Policy?

Many employees generally are not be familiar with the specific details of the law. They may feel offended by monitoring, especially of their own equipment. Companies must also consider the effect on workplace morale if everyone feels spied upon, and the risk that some high-performing employees may decide to look elsewhere for career opportunities. Employers should develop a clear, specific, and reasonable monitoring policy. The policy should limit monitoring to that which is directly work related. For example, if a company is concerned about productivity and the goal of monitoring is to keep tabs on employee performance, then neither keystroke logging nor screenshot recording is necessary; software designed to show idle time or personal Internet use would be more helpful in identifying wasted time, which is the ultimate goal.

Employers should always remember their business goals when monitoring employees. It is not only a matter of treating employees ethically; it also makes good business sense to ensure that monitoring pertains only to business matters and does not unnecessarily intrude into the privacy of employees. Perhaps most importantly, in the interest of fairness, the monitoring policy must be communicated to the employees. When, if ever, is it acceptable to monitor without notice to the employee and without his or her knowledge?

The Connecticut policy in the preceding Link to Learning applies to all employers (i.e., in state and in private sector workplaces). However, many states have policies that apply only to employees who work for the government. State employees hold a special status that conveys certain state constitutional rights with regard to due process, reasonable searches, and related legal doctrines. The same is true for federal government employees and the U.S. Constitution, which means the government has a duty of fairness in employee surveillance. It does not mean, however, that the government cannot monitor its employees at all, as demonstrated by an incident involving a California police officer. In a unanimous decision in Ontario v. Quon,

the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010 ruled in favor of a police chief in Ontario, California, who read nearly five hundred text messages sent by one of his sergeants on a police-issued pager. Many of the text messages were personal and some were sexually explicit. Only a few dozen were work related. The justices agreed that constitutional limits on unreasonable searches by public employers (under the Fourth Amendment) were minimal given a work-related purpose.

This decision creates precedent for more than 25 million employees of federal, state, and local governments and limits their expectation of privacy when using employer-issued tools. “Because the search [by the police chief] was motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose and because it was not excessive in scope, the search was reasonable,” said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

In the private sector, where employees are not working for the government and the constitutional prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures has very little applicability, if any, employers have even more latitude in terms of employee monitoring than in a government setting. The Ontario v. Quon case in all likelihood would never even make it to court if the employer were a private-sector company, because the issue of whether getting the text message was a reasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment does not apply in a nongovernment employment setting. The Constitution acts to limit government intrusions but does not generally restrict private companies in this type of situation. However, ethical considerations may encourage private-sector employers to treat their workers respectfully, even if not required by law.

Drug Testing in the Workplace

Key issues that arise about a drug testing or monitoring program begin with whether an employer wants or needs to do it. Is it required by law for a particular job, under state or local regulations? Is it for pre-employment clearance? Does the employer need employees’ permission? Does a failed test require mandatory termination? With the exception of employers in industries regulated by the federal government, such as airlines, trucking companies, rail lines, and national security-related firms, federal law is not controlling on the issue of drug testing in the workplace; it is largely a state issue. At the federal level, the Department of Transportation does mandate drug testing for workers such as airline crews and railway conductors and has a specific procedure that must be followed. However, for the most part, drug testing is not mandatory and depends on whether the employer wants to do it. Multiple states do regulate drug testing, but to varying degrees, and there is no common standard to be followed.

Testing of job applicants is the most common form of drug testing. State laws typically allow it, but the employer must follow state rules, if they exist, about providing notice and following standard procedures intended to prevent inaccurate samples. Testing current employees is much less common, primarily due to cost; however, companies that do use drug testing include some in the pharmaceutical and financial services industries. Some states put legal constraints on drug testing of private-sector employees. For example, in a few states. the job must include the possibility of property damage or injury to others, or the employer must believe the employee is using drugs.

Challenging a drug test is difficult because tests are considered highly accurate. An applicant or employee can refuse to take the test, but that often means not being hired or losing the job, assuming the worker is an employee at will. The concept of employment at will affirms that either the employee or the employer may dissolve an employment arrangement at will (i.e., without cause and at any time unless an employment contract is in effect that stipulates differently). Most workers are considered employees at will because neither the employer nor employee is obligated to the other; the worker can quit or be fired at any time for any reason because there is no contractual obligation. In some states, the employee risks not only job loss but also the denial of unemployment benefits if fired for refusing to take a drug test. Thus, the key concept that makes drug testing possible is employment at will, which covers approximately 85 percent of the employees in the private sector (unionized workers and top executives have contracts and thus are not at will, nor are government employees who have due process rights). The only legal limitation is that, in some states, the drug testing procedure must be fair, accurate, and designed to minimize errors and false-positive results.

The drug testing process, however, raises some difficult privacy issues. Employers want and are allowed to protect against specimen tampering by taking such steps as requiring subjects to wear a hospital gown. Some employers use test monitors who check the temperature of the urine and/or listen as a urine sample is collected. According to the Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute, some state courts (e.g., Georgia, Louisiana, Hawaii) have found it an unreasonable invasion of privacy for the monitor to watch an employee in the restroom; however, in other states (e.g., Texas, Nevada), this is allowed.

Case examples abound of challenges based on privacy concerns. In an article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, University of Houston Law School professor Mark Rothstein, who is director of the Health Law and Policy Institute, summarized examples of legal challenges.

In one case, the court ruled that an employer engaged in unlawful retaliation as defined by the Mine Safety and Health Act. The employer dismissed two employees who were required to urinate in the presence of others but found themselves unable to do so. In a different case, $125,000 in tort damages was awarded to a worker for invasion of privacy and negligent infliction of emotional distress as a consequence of his being forced to submit a urine sample as he was being directly observed.

A Duty of Loyalty

Hard work and our best effort likely make sense as obligations we owe an employer. However, loyalty is more abstract and less easily defined. Most workers do not have employment contracts, so there may not be a specific agreement between the two parties detailing their mutual responsibilities. Instead, the common law (case law) of agency in each state is often the source of the rules governing an employment relationship. The usual depiction of duty in common law is the duty of loyalty, which, in all fifty states, requires that an employee refrain from acting in a manner contrary to the employer’s interest. This duty creates some basic rules employees must follow on the job and provides employers with enforceable rights against employees who violate them.

In general terms, the duty of loyalty means an employee is obligated to render “loyal and faithful” service to the employer, to act with “good faith,” and not to compete with but rather to advance the employer’s interests.

The employee must not act in a way that benefits him- or herself (or any other third party), especially when doing so would create a conflict of interest with the employer.

The common law of most states holds as a general rule that, without asking for and receiving the employer’s consent, an employee cannot hold a second job if it would compete or conflict with the first job. Thus, although the precise boundaries of this aspect of the duty of loyalty are unclear, an employee who works in the graphic design department of a large advertising agency in all likelihood cannot moonlight on the weekend for a friend’s small web design business. However, employers often grant permission for employees to work in positions that do not compete or interfere with their principal jobs. The graphic designer might work for a friend’s catering business, for example, or perhaps as a wedding photographer or editor of a blog for a public interest community group.

What is clear is that it is wrong for employees to make work decisions primarily for their own personal gain, rather than doing what is in the employer’s best interest. An employee might have the authority to decide which other companies the employer will do business with, for example, such as service vendors that maintain the copiers or clean the offices. What if the employee owned stock in one of those companies or had a relative who worked there? That gives him or her an incentive to encourage doing business with that particular company, whether it would be best for the employer or not.

The degree to which the duty of loyalty exists is usually related to the degree of responsibility or trust an employer places in an employee. More trust equals a stronger duty. For example, when an employee has very extensive authority or access to confidential information, the duty can rise to its highest level, called a fiduciary duty, which is discussed in an earlier chapter.

Differing Concepts of Loyalty

There is no generally agreed-upon definition of an employee’s duty of loyalty to his or her employer. One indicator that our understanding of the term is changing is that millennials are three times more likely than older generations to change jobs, according to a Forbes Human Resources Council survey ((Figure)).

About nine in ten millennials (91 percent) say they do not expect to stay with their current job longer than three years, compared with older workers who often anticipated spending ten years or even an entire career with one employer, relying on an implicit social contract between employer and employee that rewarded lifetime employment.

The Loyalty Research Center, a consulting firm, defines loyal employees as “being committed to the success of the organization. They believe that working for this organization is their best option . . . and loyal employees do not actively search for alternative employment and are not responsive to offers.”

Likewise, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, professor Matthew Bidwell says there are two halves to the term: “One piece is having the employer’s best interests at heart. The other piece is remaining with the same employer rather than moving on.” Bidwell goes on to acknowledge, “There is less a sense that your organization is going to look after you in the way that it used to, which would lead [us] to expect a reduction in loyalty.”

Why are employees less likely to feel a duty of loyalty to their companies? One reason is that loyalty is a two-way street, a feeling developed through the enactment of mutual obligations and responsibilities. However, most employers do not want to be obligated to their workers in a legal sense; they usually require that almost all workers are employees “at will,” that is, without any long-term employment contract. Neither state nor federal law mandates an employment contract, so when a company says an employee is employed at will, it is sending a message that management is not making a long-term commitment to the employee. Employees may naturally feel less loyalty to an organization from which they believe they can be let go at any time and for any legal reason (which is essentially what at-will employment means). Of course, at-will employment also means the employee can also quit at any time. However, freedom to move is a benefit only if the employee has mobility and a skill set he or she can sell to the highest bidder. Otherwise, for most workers, at-will employment usually works to the employer’s advantage, not the employee’s.

Another reason the concept of loyalty to an organization seems to be changing at all levels is the important role money plays in career decisions. When they see chief executive officers (CEOs) and other managers leaving to work for the highest bidder, subordinates quickly conclude that they, too, ought to look out for themselves, just as their bosses do, rather than trying to build up seniority with the company. Switching jobs can often be a way for employees to improve their salaries. Consider professional sports. For decades professional athletes were tied to one team and could not sell their services to the highest bidder, meaning that their salaries were effectively capped. Finally, after several court decisions (including the Curt Flood reserve clause case involving the St. Louis Cardinals and Major League Baseball),

players achieved some degree of freedom and can now switch employers frequently in an effort to maximize their earning potential.

The same evolution occurred in the entertainment industry. In the early years of the movie business, actors were tied to studios by contracts that prevented them from making movies for any other studio, effectively limiting their earning power. Then the entertainment industry changed as actors gained the freedom to sell their services to the highest bidder, becoming much more highly compensated in the process. Employees in any industry, not just sports and entertainment, benefit from being able to change jobs if their salary at their current job stagnates or falls below the market rate.

Another economic phenomenon affecting loyalty in the private sector was the switch from defined-benefit to defined-contribution retirement plans. In the former, often called a pension, employee benefits are usually sponsored (paid) fully by the employer and calculated using a formula based on length of employment, salary history, and other factors. The employer administers the plan and manages the investment risk, promising the employee a set payout upon retirement. In the defined-contribution plan, however, the employee invests a certain percentage of his or her salary in a retirement fund, often a 401(k) or 403(b) plan, where it is sometimes matched (partially or wholly) by the employer. (These savings plans with their seemingly strange designations are part of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, and the letter/number combinations indicate subsections of the Code. 401(k) Plans typically are featured in for-profit employment settings and 403(b) plans in nonprofit environments.) Defined-benefit plans reward longevity in the firm, whereas defined-contribution plans reward high earnings over seniority. Thus, with the growth of defined-contribution plans, some reasons for staying with the same employer over time are no longer applicable.

According to PayScale’s Compensation Best Practices Report, the two leading motivators people give for leaving their job are first, higher pay, and second, personal reasons (e.g., family, health, marriage, spousal relocation).

Of course, beyond money, workers seek meaning in their work, and it is largely true that money alone does not motivate employees to higher performance. However, it is a mistake for managers to think money is not a central factor influencing employees’ job satisfaction. Money matters because if employees are not making enough money to meet their financial obligations or goals, they will likely be looking to for a higher-paying job. And, of course, increasing salary or other benefits can be a way of demonstrating both the company’s loyalty to its employees and the role it believes employees’ best interests play in its mission—navigating the aforementioned two-way street. For some employees, simply being acknowledged and thanked for their service and good work can go a long way toward sparking their loyalty; for others, more concrete rewards may be necessary.

Finally, many people work for themselves as freelance or contract workers in the new “gig” economy. They may take assignments from one or more companies at a time and are not employees in the traditional sense of the word. Therefore, it seems more reasonable that they would approach work in the same way a certified public accountant or attorney would—as completing a professional job for a client, after which they move on the next client, always keeping their independent status. We would not expect gig workers to demonstrate employer loyalty when they are not employees.

Confidentiality

In the competitive world of business, many employees encounter information in their day-to-day work that their employers reasonably expect they will keep confidential. Proprietary (private) information, the details of patents and copyrights, employee records and salary histories, and customer-related data are valued company assets that must remain in-house, not in the hands of competitors, trade publications, or the news media. Employers are well within their rights to expect employees to honor their duty of confidentiality and maintain the secrecy of such proprietary material. Sometimes the duty of confidentiality originates specifically from an employment contract, if there is one, and if not, the duty still exists in most situations under the common law of agency.

Most companies do not consider U.S. common law on confidentiality sufficient protection, so they often adopt employment agreements or contracts with employees that set forth the conditions of confidentiality. (Note that such contracts define a one-way obligation, from the employee to the employer, so they do not protect the at-will employee from being terminated without cause.) Typically, an employment agreement will list a variety of requirements. For example, although in most situations the law would already hold that the employer owns copyrightable works created by employees within the scope of their employment (known as works for hire), a contract usually also contains a specific clause stating that the company owns any and all such works and assigning ownership of them to the company. The agreement will also contain a patent assignment provision, stating that all inventions created within the scope of employment are owned by or assigned to the company.

Employers also want to protect their trade secrets, that is, information that has economic value because it is not generally known to the public and is kept secret by reasonable means. Trade secrets might include technical or design information, advertising and marketing plans, and research and development data that would be useful to competitors. Often nondisclosure agreements are used to protect against the theft of all such information, most of which is normally protected only by the company’s requirement of secrecy, not by federal intellectual property law. Federal law generally protects registered trademarks (commercial identifications such as words, designs, logos, slogans, symbols, and trade dress, which is product appearance or packaging) and grants creators copyrights (to protect original literary and artistic expressions such as books, paintings, music, records, plays, movies, and software) and patents (to protect new and useful inventions and configurations of useful articles) ((Figure)).

U.S. companies have long used non-compete agreements as a way to provide another layer of confidentiality, ensuring that employees with access to sensitive information will not compete with the company during or for some period after their employment there. The stated purpose of such agreements is to protect the company’s intellectual property, which is the manifestation of original ideas protected by legal means such as patent, copyright, or trademark. To be enforceable, non-compete agreements are usually limited by time and distance (i.e., they are in effect for a certain number of months or years and within a certain radius of the employer’s operations). However, some companies have begun requiring these agreements even from mid- and lower-level workers in an attempt to prevent them from changing jobs, including those who have no access to any confidential intellectual property. About 20 percent of the U.S. private-sector workforce, and about one in six people in jobs earning less than $40,000 a year, are now covered by non-compete agreements.

The increased use of such agreements has left many employees feeling trapped by their limited mobility.

An ethical question arises regarding whether this practice is in the best interests of society and its workers, and some states are responding. California enacted a law in 2017 saying that most non-compete agreements are void, holding that although an employee may owe the employer a responsibility not to compete while employed, that duty ceases upon termination of employment.

In other words, an employee does not “belong” to a company forever. In California, therefore, a non-compete arrangement that limits employment after leaving the employer is now unenforceable. Does this law reflect the approach that most states will now take? A California company may still legally prohibit its employees from moonlighting during the term of their employment, particularly for a competitor.

Employers may also insert a nonsolicitation clause, which protects a business from an employee who leaves for another job and then attempts to lure customers or former colleagues into following. Though these clauses have limitations, they can be effective tools to protect an employer’s interest in retaining its employees and customers. However, they are particularly difficult for employees to comply with in relatively closed markets. Sample language for all the clauses we have discussed is found in (Figure).

A final clause an employee might be required to sign is a nondisparagement clause, which prohibits defaming or deliberately running down the reputation of the former employer.

Respecting the Brand

Every company puts time, effort, and money into developing a brand, that is, a product or service marketed by a particular company under a particular name. As Apple, Coca-Cola, Amazon, BMW, McDonald’s, and creators of other coveted brands know, branding—creating, differentiating, and maintaining a brand’s image or reputation—is an important way to build company value, sell products and services, and expand corporate goodwill. In the sense discussed here, the term “brand” encompasses an image, reputation, logo, tagline, or specific color scheme that is trademarked, meaning the company owns it and must give permission to others who would legally use it (such as Tiffany’s unique shade of blue).

Companies want and expect employees to help in their branding endeavors. For example, according to the head of training at American Express, the company’s brand is its product, and its mantra has always been, “Happy employees make happy customers.”

American Express places significant emphasis on employee satisfaction because it is convinced this strategy helps protect and advance its brand. One company that uses positive employee involvement in branding is the technology conglomerate Cisco, which started a branding program on social media that reaches out to employees ((Figure)). Employees are encouraged to be creative in their brand-boosting posts in the program. The benefit is that prospective job candidates get a peek into Cisco life, and current employees feel the company trusts and values their ideas.

However, protecting the brand can be a special challenge today, thanks to the ease with which customers and even employees can post negative information about the brand on the Internet and social media. Consider these examples in the fast-food industry. A photo posted on Taco Bell’s Facebook page showed an employee licking a row of tacos. A Domino’s Pizza employee can be seen in a YouTube video spitting on food, putting cheese into his nose and then putting that cheese into a sandwich, and rubbing a sponge used for dishwashing on his groin area.

On Twitter, a Burger King employee in Japan posted a photo of himself lying on hamburger buns while on duty.

The companies all responded swiftly. A Taco Bell spokesperson said the food was not served to customers and the employee in the photo was fired. The two Domino’s employees behind the videos were fired and faced felony charges and a civil lawsuit; Domino’s said the tainted food was never delivered. According to a Burger King news release, the buns in the photo were waste material because of an ordering mistake and were promptly discarded after the photo was taken; the employee in the photo was fired.

These examples demonstrate how much damage disloyal or disgruntled employees can create, especially on social media. All three companies experienced financial and goodwill losses after the incidents and struggled to restore public trust in their products. The immediate and long-term costs of such incidents are the reason companies invest in developing brand loyalty among their employees.

According to a Harvard Business Review interview with Colin Mitchell, global vice president, McDonald’s Brand, McDonald’s, good branding requires that a business think of marketing not just to its customers but also to its employees, because they are the “very people who can make the brand come alive for your customers”.

The process of getting employees to believe in the product, to commit to the idea that the company is selling something worth buying, and even to think about buying it, is called internal marketing. Of course, some employees may not want to be the equivalent of a company spokesperson. Is it reasonable to expect an employee to be a kind of roving ambassador for the company, even when off the clock and interacting with friends and neighbors? Suppose employers offer employees substantial discounts on their products or services. Is this an equitable way to sustain reciprocal loyalty between managers and workers? Why or why not?

Internal marketing is an important part of the solution to the problem of employees who act as if they do not care about the company. It helps employees make a personal connection to the products and services the business sells, without which they might be more likely to undermine the company’s expectations, as in the three fast-food examples cited in this section. In those cases, it is clear the employees did not believe in the brand and felt hostile toward the company. The most common problem is usually not as extreme. More often it is a lack of effort or “slacking” on the job. Employees are more likely to develop some degree of brand loyalty when they share a common sense of purpose and identity with the company.

Obligations to Customers

As the public’s first point of contact with a company, employees are obliged to assist the firm in forming a positive relationship with customers. How well or poorly they do so contributes a great deal to customers’ impression of the company. And customers’ perceptions affect not only the company but all the employees who depend on its success for their livelihood. Thus, the ethical obligations of an employee also extend to interactions with customers, whom they should treat with respect. Employers can encourage positive behavior toward customers by empowering employees to use their best judgment when working with them.

It may take only one bad customer interaction with a less-than-engaged or committed employee to sour brand loyalty, no matter how hard a company has worked to build it. In the same way, just one good experience can build up good will.

Employees who treat customers well are assets to the company and deserve to be treated as such. Sometimes, however, customers are rude or disrespectful, creating a challenge for an employee who wants to do a good job. This problem is best addressed by management and the employee working together. In the Pizza Hut case that follows, an employee was placed in a bad situation by customers.

Getting Along with Coworkers

An employee who gets along with coworkers can help the company perform better. What can employees do to help create a more harmonious workplace with a positive atmosphere?

One thing you can do is to keep an open mind. You may be wondering as you start a new job whether you will get along with your colleagues as well as you did at your old job. Or, if you did not get along with the people there and were looking for a change, you might fear things will be the same at the new job. Do not make any prejudgments. Get to know a bit about your new coworkers. Accept, or extend, lunch invitations, join weekend activities and office social events, and perhaps join those office traditions that bind long-serving employees and newcomers together in a collaborative spirit.

Another thing you can do it to remember to be kind. Everyone has a bad day every now and then, and if you spot a coworker having one, performing a random act of kindness may make that person’s day better. You do not need to be extravagant. Offer to stay late to help the person meet a tight deadline, or bring coffee or a healthy snack to someone working on particularly difficult tasks. Remember the adage, “It’s nice to be important, but it’s more important to be nice.”

For any relationship to succeed, including the relationship between coworkers, the parties must respect each other—and show it. Avoid doing things that might offend others. For example, do not take credit for someone else’s work. Do not be narrow minded; when someone brings up a topic such as politics or religion, be willing to listen and tolerate differing points of view.

A related directive is to avoid sexual jokes, stories, anecdotes, and innuendos. You might think it is okay to talk about anything and everything at work, but it is not. Others may not find the topic funny and feel offended, and you may make yourself vulnerable to action by management if such behavior is reported. Your coworkers might be a captive audience, but you should never place them in an awkward position.

Make an effort to get along with everyone, even difficult people. You did not choose your coworkers, and some may be hard to get along with. But professionalism requires that we attempt to establish the best working relationships we can on the job, no matter the opinions we might have about our colleagues. Normally, we might like some of them very much, be neutral about some others, and genuinely dislike still others. Yet our responsibility in the workplace is to respect and act at least civilly toward all of them. We likely will feel better about ourselves as professionals and also live up to our commitments to our companies.

Finally, do no use social media to gossip. Gossiping at work can cause problems anywhere, perhaps especially on social media, so resist the urge to vent online about your coworkers. It makes you appear petty, small, and untrustworthy, and colleagues may stop communicating with you. You may also run afoul of your employer’s social media policy and risk disciplinary action or dismissal.

Understanding Personalities

Understanding the various personalities at work can be a complex task, but it is a vital one for developing a sense of collegiality. One technique that may be helpful is to develop your own emotional intelligence, which is the capacity to recognize other people’s emotions and also to know and manage your own. One aspect of using emotional intelligence is showing empathy, the willingness to step into someone else’s shoes.

All of us have different workplace personalities, which express the way we think and act on the job. There are many such personalities, and none is superior or inferior to another, but they are a way in which we exhibit our uniqueness on the job ((Figure)). Some of us lead with our brains and emphasize logic and reason. Others lead with our hearts, always emphasizing mercy over justice in our relationships with others.

Employees can also have very different work styles, the way in which we are most comfortable accomplishing our tasks at work. Some of us gravitate toward independence and jobs or tasks we can accomplish alone. Others prefer team or project work, bringing us into touch with different personalities. Still others seek a mix of these environments. Some prioritize getting the job done as efficiently as possible, whereas others value the journey of working on the project with others and the shared experiences it brings. There is no right or wrong style, but it benefits any worker to know his or her preferences and something about the work personalities of colleagues. When in the office, the point for any of us individually is to appreciate what motivates our greatest success and happiness on the job.

Reducing Workplace Violence

As recent incidents have shown—for example, the April 2018 shooting at YouTube headquarters in San Bruno, California

—workplace violence is a reality, and all employees play a role in helping make work a safe, as well as harmonious place. Employees, in fact, have a legal and ethical duty not to be violent at work, and managers have a duty to prevent or stop violence. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health reports that violence at work usually fits into one of four categories: traditional criminal intent, violence by one worker against another, violence stemming from a personal relationship, and violence by a customer.

In violence based on traditional criminal intent, the perpetrator has no legitimate relationship to the business or its employees, and often the violence is part of a crime such as robbery or shoplifting. Violence between coworkers occurs when a current or former employee attacks another employee in the workplace. Worker-on-worker deaths account for approximately 15 percent of all workplace homicides. All companies are at risk for this type of violence, and contributing factors include failure to conduct a criminal background check as part of the hiring process.

When the violence arises from problems in a personal relationship, the perpetrator often has a direct relationship not with the business but with the victim, who is an employee. This category of violence accounts for slightly less than 10 percent of all workplace homicides. Women are at higher risk of being victims of this type of violence than men. In the fourth scenario, the violent person has a legitimate relationship with the business, perhaps as a customer or patient, and becomes violent while on the premises. A large portion of customer incidents occur in the nightclub, restaurant, and health care industries. In 2014, about one-fifth of all workplace homicides resulted from this type of violence.

Codes of Conduct

Companies have a right to insist that their employees, including managers, engage in ethical decision-making. To help achieve this goal, most businesses provide a written code of ethics or code of conduct for all employees to follow. These cover a wide variety of topics, from workplace romance and sexual harassment to hiring and termination policies, client and customer entertainment, bribery and gifts, personal trading of company shares in any way that hints of acting on insider knowledge of the company’s fortunes, outside employment, and dozens of others. A typical code of conduct, regardless of the company or the industry, will also contain a variety of standard clauses, often blending legal compliance and ethical considerations ((Figure)).

Two areas that deserve special mention are cybersecurity and harassment. Recent news stories have highlighted the hacking of electronic tools such as computers and databases, and employees and managers can indirectly contribute to such data breaches through unauthorized web surfing, sloppy e-mail usage, and other careless actions. Large companies such as Equifax, LinkedIn, Sony, Facebook, and JP Morgan Chase have suffered the theft of customer information, leading to loss of consumer confidence; sometimes large fines have been levied on companies. Employees play a part in preventing such breaches by strictly following company guidelines about data privacy and confidentiality, the use and storage of passwords, and other safeguards that limit access to only authorized users.

We are also witnessing an increased level of public awareness about harassment in the workplace, particularly because of the #MeToo movement that followed revelations in 2017 and 2018 of years of sexual predation by powerful men in Hollywood and Washington, DC, as well as across workplaces of all kinds, including in sports and the arts. A victim of sexual harassment can be a man or a woman, and/or the same sex as the harasser. The harasser can be a supervisor, coworker, other employee, officer/director, intern, consultant, or nonemployee. Whatever the situation, harassing and threatening behavior is wrong (and sometimes criminal) and should always be reported.

Insider Trading

The buying or selling of stocks, bonds, or other investments based on nonpublic information that is likely to affect the price of the security being traded is called insider trading. For example, someone who is privy to information that a company is about to be taken over, which will cause its stock price to rise when the information becomes public, may buy the stock before it goes up in order to sell it later for an enhanced profit. Likewise, someone with inside information about a coming drop in share price may sell all his or her holdings at the current price before the information is announced, avoiding the loss other shareholders will suffer when the price falls. Although insider trading can be difficult to prove, it is essentially cheating. It is illegal, unethical, and unfair, and it often injures other investors, as well as undermining public confidence in the stock market.

Insider trading laws are somewhat complex. They have developed through federal court interpretations of Section 10(b)5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as through actions by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The laws identify several kinds of violations. These include trading by an insider (generally someone who performs work for the company) who possesses significant confidential information relevant to the valuation of the company’s stock, and trading by someone outside of the company who is given this sort of information by an insider or who obtains it inappropriately. Even being the messenger (the one communicating material nonpublic information to others on behalf of someone else) can be a legal violation.

The concept of an “insider” is broad and includes officers, directors, and employees of a company issuing securities. A person can even constitute what is called a “temporary insider” if he or she temporarily assumes a unique confidential relationship with a firm and, in doing so, acquires confidential information centered on the firm’s financial and operational affairs. Temporary insiders can be investment bankers, brokers, attorneys, accountants, or other professionals typically thought of as outsiders, such as newspaper and television reporters.

A famous case of insider trading, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. (1968), began with the discovery of the Kidd Mine and implicated the employees of Texas mining company.

When first notified of the discovery of a large and very valuable copper deposit, mine employees bought stock in the company while keeping the information secret. When the information was released to the public, the price of the stock went up and the employees sold their stock, making a significant amount of money. The SEC and the Department of Justice prosecuted the employees for insider trading and won a conviction; the employees had to give back all the money they had made on their trades. Insider trading cases are often highly publicized, especially when charges are brought against high-profile figures.

Bribery and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Another temptation that may present itself to employees is the offer of a bribe. A bribe is a payment in some material form (cash or noncash) for an act that runs counter to the legal or ethical culture of the work environment. Bribery constitutes a violation of the law in all fifty U.S. states, as well as of a federal law that prohibits bribery in international transactions, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Bribery generally injures not only individuals but also competitors, the government, and the free-market system as a whole. Of course, often the bribe is somewhat less obvious than an envelope full of money. It is important, therefore, to understand what constitutes a bribe.

Numerous factors help establish the ethics (and legality) of gift giving and receiving: the value of the gift, its purpose, the circumstances under which it is given, the position of the person receiving it, company policy, and the law. Assuming an employee has decision-making authority, the company wants and has the right to expect him or her to make choices in its best interest, not the employee’s own self-interest. For example, assume an employee has the authority to buy a copy machine for the company. The employer wants to get the best copy machine for the best price, taking into account quality, service, warranties, and other factors. But what if the employee accepts a valuable gift card from a vendor who sells a copy machine with higher operating and maintenance charges, and then places the order with that vendor. This is clearly not in the best interests of the employer. It constitutes a failure on the part of the employee to follow ethical and legal rules, and, in all likelihood, company policy as well. If a company wants its employees always to do the right thing, it must have policies and procedures that ensure the employees know what the rules are and the consequences for breaking them.

A gift may be only a well-intentioned token of appreciation, but the potential for violating company rules (and the law) is still present. A well-written and effectively communicated gift policy provides guidance to company employees about what is and is not appropriate to accept from a customer or vendor and when. This policy should clearly state whether employees are allowed to accept gifts on or outside the work premises and who may give or accept them. If gifts are allowed, the gift policy should define the acceptable value and type, and the circumstances under which an employee may accept a gift.

When in doubt about whether the size or value of a gift renders it impossible for an employee to accept it, workers should be advised to check with the appropriate officer or department within their company. Be it an “ethics hotline” or simply the human resources department, wise firms provide an easy protocol for employees to follow in determining what falls within and without the protocols for accepting gifts.

As an example of a gift policy, consider the federal government’s strict rules.

A federal employee may not give or solicit a contribution for a gift to an official superior and may not accept a gift from an employee receiving less pay if that employee is a subordinate. On annual occasions when gifts are traditionally given, such as birthdays and holidays, an employee may give a superior a gift valued at less than $10. An employee may not solicit or accept a gift given because of his or her official position, or from a prohibited source, including anyone who has or seeks official action or business with the agency. In special circumstances such as holidays, and unless the frequency of the gifts would appear to be improper, an employee generally may accept gifts of less than $20. Gifts of entertainment, such as expensive restaurant meals, are also restricted. Finally, gifts must be reported when their total value from one source exceeds $390 in a calendar year. Some companies in the private sector follow similar rules.

Bribery presents a particular ethical challenge for employees in the international business arenas. Although every company wants to land lucrative contracts around the world, most expect their employees to follow both the law and company policy when attempting to consummate such deals. The U.S. law prohibiting bribery in international business dealings is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which is an amendment to the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, one of the most important laws promoting transparency in corporate governance. The FCPA dates to 1977 and was amended in 1988 and 1998. Its main purpose is to make it illegal for companies and their managers to influence or bribe foreign officials with monetary payments or rewards of any kind in an attempt to get or keep business opportunities outside the United States. The FCPA is enforced through the joint efforts of the SEC and the Department of Justice.

It applies to any act by U.S. businesses, their representatives, foreign corporations whose stock is traded in U.S. markets, and all U.S. citizens, nationals, or residents acting in furtherance of a foreign corrupt practice, whether they are physically present in the United States or not (this is called the nationality principle). Antibribery law is a serious issue for companies with overseas business and cross-border sales. Any companies or individuals convicted of these activities may pay significant fines, and individuals can face prison time.

The FCPA prohibits an agent of any company incorporated in the United States from extending a bribe to a foreign government official to achieve a business advantage in that country, but it does not specifically prohibit the extension of a bribe to a private officer of a nongovernmental company in a foreign country. The definition of a foreign government official can be expansive; it includes not only those working directly for the government but also company officials if the company is owned or operated by the government. An exception is made for “facilitating or grease payments,” small amounts of money paid to low-level government workers in an effort to speed routine tasks like processing paperwork or turning on electricity, but not to influence the granting of a contract.

Illegal payments need not be cash; they can include anything of value such as gifts and trips. For example, BHP Billiton, a U.S. energy company, and GlaxoSmithKline, a U.K. pharmaceutical company, were each fined $25 million for buying foreign officials tickets to the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, China.

Fines for violations like these can be large and can include civil penalties as well as forfeited profits. For example, Telia, a Swedish telecommunications provider whose shares are traded on Nasdaq, recently agreed to pay nearly a billion dollars ($965 million) in a settlement to resolve FCPA violations that consisted of using bribery to win business in Uzbekistan.

The potential effect of laws such as the FCPA that impose ethical duties on employees and the companies they work for is often debated. Although some believe the FCPA disadvantages U.S. firms competing in foreign markets, others say it is the backbone of an ethical free enterprise system. The argument against strong enforcement of the FCPA has some merit according to managers in the field, and there is a general sense that illegal or unethical conduct is sometimes necessary for success. An attorney for energy-related company Cinergy summed up the feelings of many executives: “Shame on the Justice Department’s myopic view and inability to understand the realities of the world.”

Some nations consider business bribery to be culturally acceptable and turn a blind eye to such activities.

The argument in favor of FCPA enforcement has its supporters as well, who assert that the law not only covers the activities of U.S. companies but also levels the playing field because of its broad jurisdiction over foreign enterprises and their officials. The fact is that since the United States passed the FCPA, other nations have followed suit. The 1997 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Anti-Bribery Convention has been instrumental in getting its signatories (the United Kingdom and most European Union nations) to enact stricter antibribery laws. The United Kingdom adopted the Bribery Act in 2010, Canada adopted the Corruption of Foreign Officials Act of 1999, and European Union nations have done the same. There is also the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, which has forty-three signatories, including all thirty-five OECD countries and eight other countries.

Companies and employees engaging in transactions in foreign markets face an increased level of regulatory scrutiny and are well served if they put ethics policies in place and enforce them. Companies must train employees at all levels to follow compliance guidelines and rules, rather than engaging in illegal conduct such as “under the table” and “off the books” payments ((Figure)).

Ethical Leadership

Of course, bribery is just one of many ethical dilemmas an employee might face in the workplace. Not all such dilemmas are governed by the clear-cut rules generally laid out for illegal acts such as bribery. Employees may find themselves being asked to do something that is legal but not considered ethical. For example, an employee might receive confidential proprietary knowledge about another firm that would give his or her firm an unfair competitive advantage. Should the employee act on this information?

Most companies say they want all employees to obey the law and make ethical decisions. But employees typically should not be expected to make ethical decisions based just on gut instinct; they need guidance, training, and leadership to help them navigate the maze of grey areas that present themselves daily in business. This guidance can be provided by the company through standard setting and the development of ethical codes of conduct and policies. Senior managers modeling ethical behavior and so leading by direct example also provide significant direction.

Limiting Pay Secrecy

For decades, most U.S. companies enforced pay secrecy, a policy that prohibits employees from disclosing or discussing salaries among themselves. The reason was obvious: Companies did not want to be scrutinized for their salary decisions. They knew that if workers were aware of what each was paid, they would question the inequities that pay secrecy kept hidden from them.

Recently, the situation has begun to change. Ten states have enacted new laws banning employers from imposing pay secrecy rules: California, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Vermont.

The real game changer came in 2012, when multiple decisions by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and various federal courts made it clear that most pay secrecy policies are unenforceable and violate federal labor law (National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 157-158).

Generally speaking, labor law lends employees the right to engage in collective activities, including that of discussing with each other the specifics of their individual employment arrangements, which includes how much they are paid. Moreover, the applicable sections of the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) apply to union and non-union employees, so there is no exception made for companies whose employees are non-unionized, meaning the law protects all workers. In 2014, President Barack Obama issued an executive order banning companies that engaged in federal contracting from prohibiting such salary discussions.

Opening up the discussion of pay acknowledges the growing desire of employees to be well informed and to have the freedom to question or criticize their company. If employees cannot talk about something at work because they think it will make their boss angry, where do they go instead? Social media can be a likely answer. Protections generally extend to salary discussions on Facebook or Twitter or Instagram; Section 7 of the NRLA protects two or more employees who act together or discuss improving their terms and conditions of employment in person or online, just as it does in other settings.

Speaking Out on Social Media

Does the First Amendment protect employees at work who criticize their boss or their company? Generally, no. That answer may surprise those who believe that the First Amendment protects all speech. It does not. The Bill of Rights was created to protect citizens from an overreaching government, not from their employer. The First Amendment reads as follows:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The key words are “Congress shall make no law,” meaning the content of speech is something the government and politicians cannot control with laws or policies. However, this right of free speech is generally not applicable to the private sector workplace and does not cover criticism of your employer.

Does that mean an employee can be fired for criticizing the company or boss? Yes, under most circumstances. Therefore, if someone posts a message on social media that says, “My boss is a jerk” or “My company is a terrible place to work,” the likelihood is that the person can be fired without any recourse, assuming he or she is an employee at will (see the discussion of at-will employment earlier in this chapter). Unless the act of firing constitutes a violation under federal law, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the speech is not protected speech, and thus the speaker (the employee) is not protected.

At some point, all of us may get angry with our companies or supervisors, but we still have a duty to keep our disputes in-house and not make public any situations we are attempting to resolve internally. Employers typically are prohibited from discussing human resource matters relating to any specific employees. Employees, too, should keep complaints confidential unless and until crimes are charged or civil suits are filed.

The rules related to social media are evolving, but applicable laws do not generally distinguish between sites or locations in which someone might criticize an employer, so criticism of the boss remains largely unprotected speech. As discussed earlier, employees can go online and post information about wages, hours, and working conditions, and that speech is protected by federal statute. So, although some general complaints against employers are not protected under the First Amendment, they may be protected under the NLRA (because arguably they may be related to terms and conditions of employment). However, most courts agree that statements personally critical of the boss or the company on a basis other than wages and working conditions are not protected. Obviously, there is no protection when employees post false or misleading information on social media in an attempt to harm the company’s reputation or that of management.

Whistleblowing: Risks and Rewards

The act of whistleblowing—going to an official government agency and disclosing an employer’s violation of the law—is different from everyday criticism. In fact, whistleblowing is largely viewed as a public service because it helps society reduce bad workplace behavior. Being a whistleblower is not easy, however, and someone inclined to act as one should expect many hurdles. If a whistleblower’s identity becomes known, his or her revelations may amount to career suicide. Even if they keep their job, whistleblowers often are not promoted, and they may face resentment not only from management but also from rank-and-file workers who fear the loss of their own jobs. Whistleblowers may also be blacklisted, making it difficult for them to get a job at a different firm, and all as a result of doing what is ethical.

Blowing the whistle on your employer is thus a big decision with significant ramifications. However, most employees do not want to cover up unethical or illegal conduct, nor should they. When should employees decide to blow the whistle on their boss or company? Ethicists say it should be done with an appropriate motive—to get the company to comply with the law or to protect potential victims—and not to get revenge on a boss at whom you are angry. Of course, even if an employee has a personal revenge motive, if the company actively is breaking the law, it is still important that the wrongdoing be reported. In any case, knowing when and how to blow the whistle is a challenge for an employee wanting to do the right thing.

The employee should usually try internal reporting channels first, to disclose the problem to management before going public. Sometimes workers mistakenly identify something as wrongdoing that was not wrongdoing after all. Internal reporting gives management a chance to start an investigation and attempt to rectify the situation. The employee who goes to the government should also have some kind of hard evidence that wrongful actions have occurred; the violation should be serious, and blowing the whistle should have some likelihood of stopping the wrongful act.

Under many federal laws, an employer cannot retaliate by firing, demoting, or taking any other adverse action against workers who report injuries, concerns, or other protected activity. One of the first laws with a specific whistleblower protection provision was the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Since passage of that law, Congress has expanded whistleblower authority to protect workers who report violations of more than twenty different federal laws across various topics. (There is no all-purpose whistleblower protection; it must be granted by individual statutes.)

A sample of the specific laws under which whistleblowing employees are protected can be found in the environmental area, where it is in the public interest for employees to report violations of the law to the authorities, which, in turn, helps the average citizen concerned about clean air and water. The Clean Air Act protects any employee reporting air emission violations from area, stationary, and mobile sources from any retaliation for such reporting. The Water Pollution Control Act similarly protects from retaliation any employee who reports alleged violations relating to discharge of pollutants into water.

Without the help of employees who are “on the ground” and see the violations occur, it could be difficult for government regulators to always find the source of pollution. Even when whistleblowers are not acting completely altruistically, their revelations may still be true and worthy of being brought to the public’s attention. Thus, in such situations, the responsible employee becomes a steward of the public interest, and we all should want whistleblowers to come forward. Yet not all whistleblowers are white knights, and not all their firms are evil dragons worthy of being slain.

Blowing the whistle may bring the employee more than just intrinsic ethical rewards; it may also result in cash. The most lucrative law under which employees can blow the whistle is the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733. This legislation was enacted in 1863, during the American Civil War, because Congress was worried that suppliers of goods to the Union Army might cheat the government. The FCA has been amended many times since then, and today it serves as a leading example of a statutory law that remains important after more than 150 years. The FCA provides that any person who knowingly submits false claims to the government must pay a civil penalty for each false claim, plus triple the amount of the government’s damages. The amount of this basic civil penalty is regularly adjusted by the cost of living, and the current penalty range is from $5500 to $11,000.

More importantly for our discussion, the qui tam provision of the law allows private persons (called relators) to file lawsuits for violations of the FCA on behalf of the government and to receive part of any penalty imposed. The person bringing the action is a type of a whistleblower, but one who initiates legal action on his or her own rather than simply reporting it to a government agency. If the government believes it is a worthwhile case and intervenes in the lawsuit, then the relator (whistleblower) is entitled to receive between 15 and 25 percent of the amount the government recovers. If the government thinks winning is a long shot and declines to intervene in the lawsuit, the relator’s share increases to 25 to 30 percent.

A few whistleblowers have become rich (and famous, thanks to an ABC News story), with awards ranging in the neighborhood of $100 million.

In 2012, a single whistleblower, Bradley Birkenfeld, a former UBS employee, was awarded $104 million by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), making him the most highly rewarded whistleblower in history. Birkenfeld also spent time in prison for participating in the tax fraud he reported. In 2009, ten former Pfizer employees were awarded $102 million for exposing an illegal promotion of prescription medications. John Kopchinski, the original whistleblower and one of the ten, received $50 million. In another case involving the health care company HCA, two employees who blew the whistle on Medicare fraud ended up receiving a combined total of $100 million.

It is not just the size of the reward that should get your attention but also the amount of money these employees saved taxpayers and/or shareholders. They turned in companies that were cheating the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (affecting taxpayers), the IRS (affecting government revenues), and private health insurance (affecting premiums). The public saved far more than the reward paid to the whistleblowers.

Incredibly high rewards such as the aforementioned are somewhat unusual, but according to National Whistleblower Center director Stephen Kohn, “Birkenfeld’s and Eckard’s rewards act like advertisements for the U.S. government’s whistleblower programs, which make hundreds of rewards every year.”

The FCA is one of four laws under which whistleblowers can receive a reward; the others are administered by the IRS, the SEC, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Most whistleblowers do not get paid until the lawsuit and all appeals have concluded and the full amount of any monetary penalty has been paid to the government. Many complex cases of business fraud can go on for several years before a verdict is rendered and appealed (or a settlement is reached). An employee whose identity has been disclosed and who has been unofficially blacklisted may not see any reward money for several years.

Sometimes employees, including managers, face an ethical dilemma that they seek to address from within rather than becoming a whistleblower. The risk is that they may be ignored or that their speaking up will be held against them. However, companies should want and expect employees to step forward and report wrongdoing to their superiors, and they should support that decision, not punish it. Sallie Krawcheck, a financial industry executive, was not a whistleblower in either the classical or the legal sense. She went to her boss with her discovery of wrongdoing at work, which means she had no legal protection under whistleblower statutes. Read her story in the following box.

Workplace Diversity

The twenty-first century workplace features much greater diversity than was common even a couple of generations ago. Individuals who might once have faced employment challenges because of religious beliefs, ability differences, or sexual orientation now regularly join their peers in interview pools and on the job. Each may bring a new outlook and different information to the table; employees can no longer take for granted that their coworkers think the same way they do. This pushes them to question their own assumptions, expand their understanding, and appreciate alternate viewpoints. The result is more creative ideas, approaches, and solutions. Thus, diversity may also enhance corporate decision-making.

Communicating with those who differ from us may require us to make an extra effort and even change our viewpoint, but it leads to better collaboration and more favorable outcomes overall, according to David Rock, director of the Neuro-Leadership Institute in New York City, who says diverse coworkers “challenge their own and others’ thinking.”

According to the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), organizational diversity now includes more than just racial, gender, and religious differences. It also encompasses different thinking styles and personality types, as well as other factors such as physical and cognitive abilities and sexual orientation, all of which influence the way people perceive the world. “Finding the right mix of individuals to work on teams, and creating the conditions in which they can excel, are key business goals for today’s leaders, given that collaboration has become a paradigm of the twenty-first century workplace,” according to an SHRM article.

Attracting workers who are not all alike is an important first step in the process of achieving greater diversity. However, managers cannot stop there. Their goals must also encompass inclusion, or the engagement of all employees in the corporate culture. “The far bigger challenge is how people interact with each other once they’re on the job,” says Howard J. Ross, founder and chief learning officer at Cook Ross, a consulting firm specializing in diversity. “Diversity is being invited to the party; inclusion is being asked to dance. Diversity is about the ingredients, the mix of people and perspectives. Inclusion is about the container—the place that allows employees to feel they belong, to feel both accepted and different.”

Workplace diversity is not a new policy idea; its origins date back to at least the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA) or before. Census figures show that women made up less than 29 percent of the civilian workforce when Congress passed Title VII of the CRA prohibiting workplace discrimination. After passage of the law, gender diversity in the workplace expanded significantly. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the percentage of women in the labor force increased from 48 percent in 1977 to a peak of 60 percent in 1999. Over the last five years, the percentage has held relatively steady at 57 percent. Over the past forty years, the total number of women in the labor force has risen from 41 million in 1977 to 71 million in 2017.

The BLS projects that the number of women in the U.S. labor force will reach 92 million in 2050 (an increase that far outstrips population growth).

The statistical data show a similar trend for African American, Asian American, and Hispanic workers ((Figure)). Just before passage of the CRA in 1964, the percentages of minorities in the official on-the-books workforce were relatively small compared with their representation in the total population. In 1966, Asians accounted for just 0.5 percent of private-sector employment, with Hispanics at 2.5 percent and African Americans at 8.2 percent.

However, Hispanic employment numbers have significantly increased since the CRA became law; they are expected to more than double from 15 percent in 2010 to 30 percent of the labor force in 2050. Similarly, Asian Americans are projected to increase their share from 5 to 8 percent between 2010 and 2050.

Much more progress remains to be made, however. For example, many people think of the technology sector as the workplace of open-minded millennials. Yet Google, as one example of a large and successful company, revealed in its latest diversity statistics that its progress toward a more inclusive workforce may be steady but it is very slow. Men still account for the great majority of employees at the corporation; only about 30 percent are women, and women fill fewer than 20 percent of Google’s technical roles ((Figure)). The company has shown a similar lack of gender diversity in leadership roles, where women hold fewer than 25 percent of positions. Despite modest progress, an ocean-sized gap remains to be narrowed. When it comes to ethnicity, approximately 56 percent of Google employees are white. About 35 percent are Asian, 3.5 percent are Latino, and 2.4 percent are black, and of the company’s management and leadership roles, 68 percent are held by whites.

Google is not alone in coming up short on diversity. Recruiting and hiring a diverse workforce has been a challenge for most major technology companies, including Facebook, Apple, and Yahoo (now owned by Verizon); all have reported gender and ethnic shortfalls in their workforces.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has made available 2014 data comparing the participation of women and minorities in the high-technology sector with their participation in U.S. private-sector employment overall, and the results show the technology sector still lags.

Compared with all private-sector industries, the high-technology industry employs a larger share of whites (68.5%), Asian Americans (14%), and men (64%), and a smaller share of African Americans (7.4%), Latinos (8%), and women (36%). Whites also represent a much higher share of those in the executive category (83.3%), whereas other groups hold a significantly lower share, including African Americans (2%), Latinos (3.1%), and Asian Americans (10.6%). In addition, and perhaps not surprisingly, 80 percent of executives are men and only 20 percent are women. This compares negatively with all other private-sector industries, in which 70 percent of executives are men and 30 percent women.

Technology companies are generally not trying to hide the problem. Many have been publicly releasing diversity statistics since 2014, and they have been vocal about their intentions to close diversity gaps. More than thirty technology companies, including Intel, Spotify, Lyft, Airbnb, and Pinterest, each signed a written pledge to increase workforce diversity and inclusion, and Google pledged to spend more than $100 million to address diversity issues.

Diversity and inclusion are positive steps for business organizations, and despite their sometimes slow pace, the majority are moving in the right direction. Diversity strengthens the company’s internal relationships with employees and improves employee morale, as well as its external relationships with customer groups. Communication, a core value of most successful businesses, becomes more effective with a diverse workforce. Performance improves for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that acknowledging diversity and respecting differences is the ethical thing to do.

Adding Value through Diversity

Diversity need not be a financial drag on a company, measured as a cost of compliance with no return on the investment. A recent McKinsey & Company study concluded that companies that adopt diversity policies do well financially, realizing what is sometimes called a diversity dividend. The study results demonstrated a statistically significant relationship of better financial performance from companies with a more diverse leadership team, as indicated in (Figure). Companies in the top 25 percent in terms of gender diversity were 15 percent more likely to post financial returns above their industry median in the United States. Likewise, companies in the top 25 percent of racial and/or ethnic diversity were 35 percent more likely to show returns exceeding their respective industry median.

These results demonstrate a positive correlation between diversity and performance, rebutting any claim that affirmative action and other such programs are social engineering that constitutes a financial drag on earnings. In fact, the results reveal a negative correlation between performance and lack of diversity, with companies in the bottom 25 percent for gender and ethnicity or race proving to be statistically less likely to achieve above-average financial returns than the average companies. Non-diverse companies were not leaders in performance indicators. Positive correlations do not equal causation, of course, and greater gender and ethnic diversity do not automatically translate into profit. Rather, as this chapter shows, they enhance creativity and decision-making, employee satisfaction, an ethical work environment, and customer goodwill, all of which, in turn, improve operations and boost performance.

Diversity is not a concept that matters only for the rank-and-file workforce; it makes a difference at all levels of an organization. The McKinsey & Company study, which examined twenty thousand firms in ninety countries, also found that companies in the top 25 percent for executive and/or board diversity had returns on equity more than 50 percent higher than those companies that ranked in the lowest 25 percent. Companies with a higher percentage of female executives tended to be more profitable.

Achieving equal representation in employment based on demographic data is the ethical thing to do because it represents the essential American ideal of equal opportunity for all. It is a basic assumption of an egalitarian society that all have the same chance without being hindered by immutable characteristics. However, there are also directly relevant business reasons to do it. More diverse companies perform better, as we saw earlier in this chapter, but why? The reasons are intriguing and complex. Among them are that diversity improves a company’s chances of attracting top talent and that considering all points of view may lead to better decision-making. Diversity also improves customer experience and employee satisfaction.

To achieve improved results, companies need to expand their definition of diversity beyond race and gender. For example, differences in age, experience, and country of residence may result in a more refined global mind-set and cultural fluency, which can help companies succeed in international business. A salesperson may know the language of customers or potential customers from a specific region or country, for example, or a customer service representative may understand the norms of another culture. Diverse product-development teams can grasp what a group of customers may want that is not currently being offered.

Resorting to the same approaches repeatedly is not likely to result in breakthrough solutions. Diversity, however, provides usefully divergent perspectives on the business challenges companies face. New ideas help solve old problems—another way diversity makes a positive contribution to the bottom line.

The Challenges of a Diverse Workforce

Diversity is not always an instant success; it can sometimes introduce workplace tensions and lead to significant challenges for a business to address. Some employees simply are slow to come around to a greater appreciation of the value of diversity because they may never have considered this perspective before. Others may be prejudiced and consequently attempt to undermine the success of diversity initiatives in general. In 2017, for example, a senior software engineer’s memo criticizing Google’s diversity initiatives was leaked, creating significant protests on social media and adverse publicity in national news outlets.

The memo asserted “biological causes” and “men’s higher drive for status” to account for women’s unequal representation in Google’s technology departments and leadership.

Google’s response was quick. The engineer was fired, and statements were released emphasizing the company’s commitment to diversity.

Although Google was applauded for its quick response, however, some argued that an employee should be free to express personal opinions without punishment (despite the fact that there is no right of free speech while at work in the private sector).

In the latest development, the fired engineer and a coworker filed a class-action lawsuit against Google on behalf of three specific groups of employees who claim they have been discriminated against by Google: whites, conservatives, and men.

This is not just the standard “reverse discrimination” lawsuit; it goes to the heart of the culture of diversity and one of its greatest challenges for management—the backlash against change.

In February 2018, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Google’s termination of the engineer did not violate federal labor law

and that Google had discharged the employee only for inappropriate but unprotected conduct or speech that demeaned women and had no relationship to any terms of employment. Although this ruling settles the administrative labor law aspect of the case, it has no effect on the private wrongful termination lawsuit filed by the engineer, which is still proceeding.

Yet other employees are resistant to change in whatever form it takes. As inclusion initiatives and considerations of diversity become more prominent in employment practices, wise leaders should be prepared to fully explain the advantages to the company of greater diversity in the workforce as well as making the appropriate accommodations to support it. Accommodations can take various forms. For example, if you hire more women, should you change the way you run meetings so everyone has a chance to be heard? Have you recognized that women returning to work after childrearing may bring improved skills such as time management or the ability to work well under pressure? If you are hiring more people of different faiths, should you set aside a prayer room? Should you give out tickets to football games as incentives? Or build team spirit with trips to a local bar? Your managers may need to accept that these initiatives may not suit everyone. Adherents of some faiths may abstain from alcohol, and some people prefer cultural events to sports. Many might welcome a menu of perquisites (“perks”) from which to choose, and these will not necessarily be the ones that were valued in the past. Mentoring new and diverse peers can help erase bias and overcome preconceptions about others. However, all levels of a company must be engaged in achieving diversity, and all must work together to overcome resistance.

Protections for People with Disabilities

In the United States, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), passed in 1990, stipulates that a person has a disability if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that reduces participation in “a major life activity,” such as work. An employer may not discriminate in offering employment to an individual who is diagnosed as having such a disability. Furthermore, if employment is offered, the employer is obliged to make reasonable accommodations to enable him or her to carry out normal job tasks. Making reasonable accommodations may include altering the physical workplace so it is readily accessible, restructuring a job, providing or modifying equipment or devices, or offering part-time or modified work schedules. Other accommodations could include providing readers, interpreters, or other necessary forms of assistance such as an assistive animal ((Figure)). The ADA also prohibits discriminating against individuals with disabilities in providing access to government services, public accommodations, transportation, telecommunications, and other essential services.

Access and accommodation for employees with physical or mental disabilities are good for business because they expand the potential pool of good workers. It is also ethical to have compassion for those who want to work and be contributing members of society. This principle holds for customers as well as employees. Recognizing the need for protection in this area, the federal government has enacted several laws to provide it. The Disability Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice lists ten different federal laws protecting people with disabilities, including not only the ADA but also laws such as the Rehabilitation Act, the Air Carrier Access Act, and the Architectural Barriers Act.

A key part of complying with the law is understanding and applying the concept of reasonableness: “An employer is required to provide a reasonable accommodation to a qualified applicant or employee with a disability unless the employer can show that the accommodation would be an undue hardship—that is, that it would require significant difficulty or expense.”

The law does not require an employee to refer to the ADA or to “disability” or “reasonable accommodation” when requesting some type of assistance. Managers need to be able to recognize the variety of ways in which a request for an accommodation is communicated. For example, an employee might not specifically say, “I need a reasonable accommodation for my disability” but rather, “I’m having a hard time getting to work on time because of the medical treatments I’m undergoing.” This example demonstrates a challenge employers may face under the ADA in properly identifying requests for accommodation.

Managing Religious Diversity in the Workplace

Title VII of the CRA, which governs nondiscrimination, applies the same rules to the religious beliefs (or nonbeliefs) of employees and job applicants as it does to race, gender, and other categories. The essence of the law mandates four tenets that all employers should follow: nondiscrimination, nonharassment, nonretaliation, and reasonable accommodation.

Regulations require that an employee notify the employer of a bona fide religious belief for which he or she wants protection, but the employee need not expressly request a specific accommodation. The employer must consider all possible accommodations that do not require violating the individual’s beliefs and/or practices, such as allowing time off ((Figure)). However, the accommodation need not pose undue hardship on the firm, in terms of either scheduling or financial sacrifice. The employer must present proof of hardship if it decides it cannot offer an accommodation.

Some cases of accommodation are based on cultural heritage rather than religion.

Reasonable accommodation may require more than just a couple of hours off to go to weekly worship or to celebrate a holiday. It may extend to dress and uniform requirements, grooming rules, work rules and responsibilities, religious expression and displays, prayer or meditation rooms, and dietary issues.

The law also protects those who do not have traditional beliefs. In Welsh v. United States (1970), the Supreme Court ruled that any belief occupying “a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualifying for the exception” is covered by the law.

A nontheistic value system consisting of personal, moral, or ethical beliefs that is sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views is deserving of protection. Protected individuals need not have a religion; indeed, if atheist or agnostic, they may have no religion at all.

Religion has become a hot-button issue for some political groups in the United States. Religious tolerance is the official national policy enshrined in the Constitution, but it has come under attack by some who want to label the United States an exclusively Christian nation.

Legal Protections

Workplace discrimination in this area means treating someone differently solely because of his or her sexual identification or sexual orientation, which can include, but is not limited to, identification as gay or lesbian (homosexual), bisexual, transsexual, or straight (heterosexual). Discrimination may also be based on an individual’s association with someone of a different sexual orientation. Forms that such discrimination may take in the workplace include denial of opportunities, termination, and sexual assault, as well as the use of offensive terms, stereotyping, and other harassment.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Windsor (2013) that Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (which had restricted the federal interpretations of “marriage” and “spouse” to opposite-sex unions) was unconstitutional, and guaranteed same-sex couples the right to marry in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015),

marital status has little or no direct applicability to the circumstances of someone’s employment. In terms of legal protections at work, the LGBTQ community is at a disadvantage because Title VII of the CRA does not address sexual orientation and federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on this characteristic. As of January 2018, twenty states prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in private and public workplaces and five more states prohibit sexual orientation discrimination only in public workplaces, not private ((Figure)).

In those states that do not have applicable state laws, employees risk adverse employment action simply for their LGBTQ status or for being married to a same-sex partner. Although legislation to address these circumstances has been introduced in Congress in previous sessions, none of the bills has yet passed. For example, a proposed law named the Equality Act is a federal LGBTQ nondiscrimination bill that would provide protections for LGBTQ individuals in employment, housing, credit, and education. But unless and until it passes, it remains up to the business community to provide protections consistent with those provided under federal law for other employees or applicants.

Ethical Considerations

In the absence of a specific law, LGBTQ issues present a unique opportunity for ethical leadership. Many companies choose to do the ethically and socially responsible thing and treat all workers equally, for example, by extending the same benefits to same-sex partners that they extend to heterosexual spouses. Ethical leaders are also willing to listen and be considerate when dealing with employees who may still be coming to an understanding of their sexual identification.

Financial and performance-related considerations come into play as well. Denver Investments recently analyzed the stock performance of companies before and after their adoption of LGBTQ-inclusive workplace policies.

The number of companies outperforming their peers in various industries increased after companies adopted LGBTQ-inclusive workplace policies. Once again, being ethical does not mean losing money or performing poorly.

In fact, states that have passed legislation considered anti-LGBTQ by the wider U.S. community, such as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Indiana or North Carolina’s H.B. 2, the infamous “bathroom bill” that would require transgender individuals to use the restroom corresponding with their birth certificate, have experienced significant economic pushback. These states have seen statewide and targeted boycotts by consumers, major corporations, national organizations such as the National Collegiate Athletic Association, and even other cities and states.

In 2016, in response to H.B. 2, nearly seventy large U.S. companies, including American Airlines, Apple, DuPont, General Electric, IBM, Morgan Stanley, and Wal-Mart, signed an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief in opposition to the unpopular North Carolina bill.

Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act evoked a similar backlash in 2015 and public criticism from U.S. businesses.

To assess LGBTQ equality policies at a corporate level, the Human Rights Campaign foundation publishes an annual Corporate Equality Index (CEI) of approximately one thousand large U.S. companies and scores each on a scale of 0 to 100 on the basis of how LGBTW-friendly its benefits and employment policies are ((Figure)). More than six hundred companies recently earned a perfect score in the 2018 CEI, including such household names as AT&T, Boeing, Coca-Cola, Gap Inc., General Motors, Johnson & Johnson, Kellogg, United Parcel Service, and Xerox.

Another organization tracking LGBTQ equality and inclusion in the workplace is the National LGBT Chamber of Commerce, which issues third-party certification for businesses that are majority-owned by LGBT individuals. There are currently more than one thousand LGBT-certified business enterprises across the country, although California, New York, Texas, Florida, and Georgia account for approximately 50 percent of them. Although these are all top-ranked states for new business startups in general, they are also home to multiple Fortune 500 companies whose diversity programs encourage LGBT-certified businesses to become part of their supply chains. Examples of large LGBT-friendly companies with headquarters in these states are American Airlines, JPMorgan Chase, SunTrust Bank, and Pacific Gas & Electric.

The Middle Class in the United States

Data collected by economic researchers at the University of California show that income disparities have become more pronounced over the past thirty-five years, with the top 10 percent of income earners averaging ten times as much income as the bottom 90 percent, and the top 1 percent making more than forty times what the bottom 90 percent does.

The percentage of total U.S. income earned by the top 1 percent increased from 8 percent to 22 percent during this period. (Figure) indicates the disparity as of 2015.

The U.S. economy was built largely on the premise of an expanding and prosperous middle class to which everyone had a chance of belonging. This ideal set the United States apart from other countries, in its own eyes and those of the world. In the years after World War II, the GI Bill and returning prosperity provided veterans with money for education, home mortgages, and even small businesses, all of which helped the economy grow. For the first time, many people could afford homes of their own, and residential home construction reached record rates. Families bought cars and opened credit card accounts. The culture of the middle class with picket fences, backyard barbecues, and black-and-white televisions had arrived. Television shows such as Leave it to Beaver and Father Knows Best reflected the “good life” desired by many in this newly emerging group. By the mid-1960s, middle-class wage earners were fast becoming the engine of the world’s largest economy.

The middle class is not a homogenous group, however. For example, split fairly evenly between Democratic and Republican parties, the middle class helped elect Republican George W. Bush in 2004 and Democrat Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. And, of course, a suburban house with a white picket fence represents a consumption economy, which is not everyone’s idea of utopia, nor should it be. More importantly, not everyone had equal access to this ideal. But one thing almost everyone agrees on is that a shrinking middle class is not good for the economy. Data from the International Monetary Fund indicate the U.S. middle class is going in the wrong direction.

Only one-quarter of 1 percent of all U.S. households have moved up from the middle- to the upper-income bracket since 2000, while twelve times that many have slid to the lower-income bracket. That is a complete reversal from the period between 1970 and 2000, when middle-income households were more likely to move up than down. According to Business Insider, the U.S. middle class is “hollowing out, and it’s hurting U.S. economic growth.”

Not only has the total wealth of middle-income families remained flat ((Figure)) but the overall percentage of middle-income households in the United States has shrunk from almost 60 percent in 1970 to only 47 percent in 2014, a very significant drop. Because consumers of comfortable means are a huge driver of the U.S. economy, with their household consumption of goods and services like food, energy, and education making up more than two-thirds of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), the downward trend is an economic challenge for corporate America and the government. Business must be part of the solution. But exactly what can U.S. companies do to help address income inequality?

Addressing Income Inequality

Robert Reich was U.S. Secretary of Labor from 1993 to 1997 and served in the administrations of three presidents (Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton). He is one of the nation’s leading experts on the labor market and the economy and is currently the chancellor’s professor of Public Policy at University of California, Berkeley, and a senior fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies. Reich recently told this story: “I was visited in my office by the chairman of one of the country’s biggest high-tech firms. He wanted to talk about the causes and consequences of widening inequality and the shrinking middle class, and what to do about it.” Reich asked the chairman why he was concerned. “Because the American middle class is the core of our customer base. If they can’t afford our products in the years ahead, we’re in deep trouble.”

Reich is hearing a similar concern from a growing number of business leaders, who see an economy that is leaving out too many people. Business leaders know the U.S. economy cannot grow when wages are declining, nor can their businesses succeed over the long term without a growing or at least a stable middle class. Other business leaders, such as Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, have also said that income inequality is a negative development. Reich quoted Blankfein: “It is destabilizing the nation and is responsible for the divisions in the country . . . too much of the GDP over the last generation has gone to too few of the people.”

Some business leaders, such as Bill Gross, chair of the world’s largest bond-trading firm, suggest raising the federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 per hour for all employers doing any type of business in interstate commerce (e.g., sending or receiving mail out of state) or for any company with more than $500,000 in sales. Many business leaders and economists agree that a higher minimum wage would help address at least part of the problem of income inequality; industrialized economies function best when income inequality is minimal, according to Gross and others who advocate for policies that bring the power of workers and corporations back into balance.

A hike in the minimum wage affects middle-class workers in two ways. First, it is a direct help to those who are part of a two-earner family at the lower end of the middle class, giving them more income to spend on necessities. Second, many higher-paid workers earn a wage that is tied to the minimum wage. Their salaries would increase as well.

Without congressional action to raise the minimum wage, states have taken the lead, along with businesses that are voluntarily raising their own minimum wage. Twenty-nine states have minimum wages that exceed the federal rate of $7.25 per hour. Costco, T.J. Maxx, Marshalls, Ikea, Starbucks, Gap, In-and-Out Burger, Whole Foods, Ben & Jerry’s, Shake Shack, and McDonalds have also raised minimum wages in the past two years. Target recently announced a rise in its minimum wage to eleven dollars per hour, and banks, including Wells Fargo, PNC Financial Services, and Fifth Third Bank, announced a fifteen-dollar minimum wage.

The American Sustainable Business Council, in conjunction with Business for a Fair Wage, surveyed more than five hundred small businesses, and the results were surprising. A clear majority (58%–66%, depending on region) supported raising the minimum wage to at least ten dollars per hour.

Business owners were not simply being ethical; most understand that their business would benefit from an increase in consumers’ purchasing power, and that this, in turn, would help the general economy. Frank Knapp, CEO of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce representing five thousand business owners, said a higher minimum wage “will put more money in the hands of 300,000 South Carolinians who make less than ten dollars per hour and they will spend it here in our local economies. This minimum wage increase will also benefit another 150,000 employees who will have their wages adjusted. The resulting net $500 million increase in state GDP will be good for small businesses and good for the economy of South Carolina.”

In addition to paying a higher wage, businesses can help workers move to, or stay in, the middle class in other ways. For decades, some companies have hired many full-time workers as independent contractors because it saves them money on a variety of employee benefits they do not have to offer as a result. However, that practice shifts the burden to the workers, who now have to pay the full cost of their health insurance, workers’ compensation, unemployment benefits, time off, and payroll taxes. A recent Department of Labor study indicates that employer costs for employee compensation averaged $35.64 per hour worked in September 2017; wages and salaries averaged $24.33 per hour worked and accounted for 68 percent of these costs, whereas benefit costs averaged $11.31 and accounted for the remaining 32 percent.

That means if employees on the payroll were paid as independent contractors, their pay would effectively be about one-third less, assuming they purchased benefits on their own. The 30 percent difference companies save by hiring independent contractors is often the margin between being in the middle class and falling below it.

Yet sympathy for raising the minimum wage at either the federal or state level to sustain the middle class or reduce poverty in general has not been unanimous. Indeed, some economists have questioned whether a positive correlation exists between greater wages and a lowering of the poverty rate. Representative of such thought is the work of David Neumark, an economist at the University of California, Irvine, and William L. Wascher, a long-time economic researcher on the staff of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. They argue that, however well-meaning such efforts might be, simply raising the minimum wage can be counterproductive to driving down poverty. Rather, they maintain, the right calculus for achieving this goal is much more complex. As they put it, “we are hard-pressed to imagine a compelling argument for a higher minimum wage when it neither helps low-income families nor reduces poverty.” Instead, the federal and state governments should consider a series of steps, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, that would be more effective in mitigating poverty.

Pay Equity as a Corollary of Income Equality

The issue of income inequality is of particular significance as it relates to women. According to the World Economic Forum (WEF), gender inequality is strongly associated with income inequality.

The WEF studied the association between the two phenomena in 140 countries over the past twenty years and discovered they are linked virtually everywhere, not only in developing nations. The issue of pay discrimination is addressed elsewhere in this textbook; however, the issue merits mention here as a part of the bigger picture of equality in the workplace. Adding to the disparity in income between men and women is the reality that many women are single mothers with dependent children and sometimes grandchildren. Hence, any reduction in their earning power has direct implications for their dependents, too, constituting injustice to multiple generations.

According to multiple studies, including those by the American Association of University Women and the Pew Research Center, on average, women are paid approximately 80 percent of what men are paid.

Laws that attempt to address this issue have not eradicated the problem. A recent trend is to take legislative action at the state rather than the federal level. A New Jersey law, for example, was named the Diane B. Allen Equal Pay Act to honor a retired state senator who experienced pay discrimination.

It will be the strongest such law in the country, allowing victims of discrimination to seek redress for up to six years of underpayment, and monetary damages for a prevailing plaintiff will be tripled.

The most significant part of the law, however, is a seemingly small change in wording that will have a big impact. Rather than requiring “equal pay for equal work,” as does the federal law and most state laws aimed at the gender wage gap, the Diane B. Allen Equal Pay Act will require “equal pay for substantially similar work.” This means that if a New Jersey woman has a different title than her male colleague but performs the same kinds of tasks and has the same level of responsibility, she must be paid the same. The new law recognizes that slight differences in job titles are sometimes used to justify pay differences but in reality are often arbitrary.

Minnesota recently passed a similar law, but it applies only to state government employees, not private-sector workers. It mandates that women be paid the same for comparable jobs and analyzes the work performed on the basis of how much knowledge, problem solving, and responsibility is required, and on working conditions rather than merely on job titles.

Ethical business managers will see this trend as an effort to address an ethical issue that has existed for well over a century and will follow the lead of states such as New Jersey and Minnesota. A company can help solve this problem by changing the way it uses job titles and creating a compensation system built on the ideas behind these two laws, which focus on job characteristics and not titles.

A Brief History of the Animal Rights Movement

Rhode Island, along with Boulder, Colorado, and Berkeley, California, led the way in enacting legislation recognizing individuals as guardians, not owners, of their animals, thus giving animals legal status beyond being just items of property. Many U.S. colleges now teach courses on animal rights law, there is strong support for granting fundamental legal rights to animals, and some attorneys, scientists, and ethicists dedicate their careers to animal rights.

The animal movement started in the late nineteenth century when the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) was formed, along with the American Humane Association. The American Welfare Institute and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) were established in the 1950s. The first federal animal protection law, the Humane Slaughter Act, was passed in the 1950s to avoid unnecessary suffering to farm animals (ten billion of which are killed every year). The most important U.S. law forbidding cruelty to animals in laboratory settings was enacted in 1966; the Animal Welfare Act requires basic humane conditions to be maintained for animals in testing facilities. Finally, in the 1970s and 1980s, the modern animal rights social movement emerged. It has led to an increased awareness of animal ethics by consumers and businesses.

However, despite significant progress, research using animals for product testing continues to be controversial in the United States, particularly because improved technology has offered humane and effective alternatives. The use of animals in biomedical research has drawn slightly less negative reaction than in consumer product testing, because of the more critical nature of the research. Though animal welfare laws have ameliorated some of the pain of animals used in biomedical research, ethical concerns remain, and veterinarians and physicians are demanding change, as are animal rights groups and policy and ethics experts. Increased integration of ethics in business conduct is operating alongside the desire to recognize animal rights, the entitlement of nonhuman animals to ethical treatment.

The Ethics of What We Eat

Concern for the welfare of animals beyond pets brings us to the agribusiness industry. This is where groups such as the ASPCA and HSUS have been particularly active. Agribusiness is a huge industry that provides us with the food we eat, including plant-based and animal-based foodstuffs. The industry has changed significantly over the past century, evolving from one consisting primarily of family and/or small businesses to a much larger one dominated mostly by large corporations. Aspects of this business with relevant and interrelated ethical questions range from ecology, animal rights, and economics to food safety and long-term sustainability ((Figure)). To achieve a high level of sustainability in the world’s food supply chain, all stakeholders—the political sector, the business sector, the finance sector, the academic sector, and the consumer—must work in concert to achieve an optimal result, and a cost-benefit analysis of ethics in the food industry should include a recognition of all their concerns.

Experts predict that for us to meet the food needs of the world’s population, we will need to double food production over the next fifty years. Given this, a high priority in the agribusiness industry ought to be to meet this demand for food at a reasonable price with products that are not a threat to human health and safety, animal health, or the limited resources in Earth’s environment. However, to do so requires attention to factors such as soil and surface water conservation and protection of natural land and water areas. Furthermore, the treatment of animals by everyone in the livestock chain (e.g., livestock farmers, dealers, fish farmers, animal transporters, slaughterhouses) must be appropriate for a society with high legal and ethical standards.

The food chain can be truly sustainable only when it safeguards the social welfare and living environment of the people working in it. This means eliminating corruption, human rights violations (including forced labor and child labor), and poor working conditions. We must also encourage and empower consumers to make informed choices, which includes enforcing labeling regulations and the posting of relevant and accurate dietary information.

Finally, an analysis of the food supply chain must also include an awareness of people’s food needs and preferences. For example, the fact that growing numbers of consumers are adopting vegetarian, vegan, gluten-free, or non–genetically modified organism diets is now apparent at responsive restaurants, grocery stores, and employer-provided cafés. For many, the ethical treatment of animals remains a philosophic issue; however, some rules about what foods are morally acceptable and how they are prepared for consumption (e.g., halal or kosher) are also grounded in faith, so animal rights have religious implications, too.

All in all, consumers’ growing ethical sensitivity about what we eat could ultimately transform agribusiness. More acreage might be assigned to growing fruits and vegetables relative to those given over to livestock grazing, for instance. Or revelations about slaughterhouse processes may reduce our acceptance of the ways in which meat is processed for consumption. The economic consequences for agribusiness of such changes are difficult to underestimate.

The Use of Animals in Medical and Cosmetic Research

Viewpoints about animals used in medical research are changing in very significant ways and have resulted in a variety of initiatives seeking alternatives to animal testing. As an example, in conjunction with professionals from human and veterinary medicine and the law, the Yale University Hastings Program in Ethics and Health Policy, a bioethics research institute, is seeking alternatives to animal testing that focus on animal welfare.

Animals such as monkeys and dogs are used in medical research ranging from the study of Parkinson disease to toxicity testing and studies of drug interactions and allergies. There is no question that medical research is a valuable and important practice. The question is whether the use of animals is a necessary or even best practice for producing the most reliable results. Alternatives include the use of patient-drug databases, virtual drug trials, computer models and simulations, and noninvasive imaging techniques such as magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography scans.

Other techniques, such as microdosing, use humans not as test animals but as a means to improve the accuracy and reliability of test results. In vitro methods based on human cell and tissue cultures, stem cells, and genetic testing methods are also increasingly available.

As for consumer product testing, which produces the loudest outcry, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act does not require that animal tests be conducted to demonstrate the safety of cosmetics. Rather, companies test formulations on animals in an attempt to protect themselves from liability if a consumer is harmed by a product. However, a significant amount of new research shows that consumer products such as cosmetics can be accurately tested for safety without the abuse of animals. Some companies may resist altering their methods of conducting research, but a growing number are now realizing that their customers are demanding a change.

Regulating the Use of Animals in Research and Testing

Like virtually every other industrialized nation, the United States permits medical experimentation on animals, with few limitations (assuming sufficient scientific justification). The goal of any laws that exist is not to ban such tests but rather to limit unnecessary animal suffering by establishing standards for the humane treatment and housing of animals in laboratories.

As explained by Stephen Latham, the director of the Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics at Yale,

possible legal and regulatory approaches to animal testing vary on a continuum from strong government regulation and monitoring of all experimentation at one end, to a self-regulated approach that depends on the ethics of the researchers at the other end. The United Kingdom has the most significant regulatory scheme, whereas Japan uses the self-regulation approach. The U.S. approach is somewhere in the middle, the result of a gradual blending of the two approaches.

A movement has begun to win legal recognition of chimpanzees as the near-equivalent of humans, therefore, as “persons” with legal rights. This is analogous to the effort called environmental justice, an attempt to do the same for the environment (discussed in the section on Environmental Justice in Three Special Stakeholders: Society, the Environment, and Government). A nonprofit organization in Florida, the Nonhuman Rights Project, is an animal advocacy group that has hired attorneys to present a theory in court that two chimpanzees (Tommy and Kiko) have the legal standing and right to be freed from cages to live in an outdoor sanctuary ((Figure)). In this case, the attorneys have been trying for years to get courts to grant the chimps habeas corpus (Latin for “you shall have the body”), a right people have under the U.S. Constitution when held against their will. To date, this effort has been unsuccessful.

The courts have extended certain constitutional rights to corporations, such as the First Amendment right to free speech (in the 2010 Citizens United case). Therefore, some reason, a logical extension of that concept would hold that animals and the environment have rights as well.

In cosmetic testing, the United States has relatively few laws protecting animals, whereas about forty other nations have taken more direct action. In 2013, the European Union banned animal testing for cosmetics and the marketing and sale of cosmetics tested on animals. Norway and Switzerland passed similar laws. Outside Europe, a variety of other nations, including Guatemala, India, Israel, New Zealand, South Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey, have also passed laws to ban or limit cosmetic animal testing. U.S. cosmetic companies will not be able to sell their products in any of these countries unless they change their practices. The Humane Cosmetics Act has been introduced but not yet passed by Congress. If enacted, it would end cosmetics testing on animals in the United States and ban the import of animal-tested cosmetics.

However, in the current antiregulatory environment, passage seems unlikely.

According to the Humane Society of the United States, a more realistic alternative approach is to develop nonanimal tests that could provide more human safety data, including information about cancer and birth defects related to new products. Consumer pressure can also influence change. If consumer purchases demonstrate a preference for cruelty-free cosmetics and support ending cosmetics animal testing, businesses will get the message. Almost one hundred companies have already ceased testing cosmetics on animals, including The Body Shop, Burt’s Bees, E.L.F. Cosmetics, Lush, and Tom’s of Maine. Lists of such firms are maintained by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and similar organizations.

Companies will be wise to adapt to the increasing level of public awareness and consumer expectations, not least because U.S. culture now incorporates pets in almost every aspect of life. Dogs, cats, and other animals function as therapy pets for patients and those experiencing stress; an Uber-style dog service will bring dogs to work or school for a few minutes of companionship. Pets visit hospitals and act as service animals, appearing in restaurants, campuses, and workplaces where they would have been prohibited as recently as ten years ago. According to the American Pet Products Association (APPA), a trade group, two-thirds of U.S. households own a pet, and pet industry sales have tripled in the past fifteen years.

The APPA estimates U.S. spending on pets will reach almost $70 billion a year by 2018.

“People are fascinated by pets. We act and spend on them as if they were our children,” says New York University sociology professor Colin Jerolmack, who studies animals in society.

As people increasingly want to include pets in all aspects of life, new and different industries have emerged and will continue to do so, such as tourism centered on the presence of pets and retail opportunities such as health insurance for animals, upscale stores, and new products specifically tailored for pets. With interest in pets at an all-time high, businesses cannot ignore the trend, either in terms of revenue to be earned or in terms of the ethical treatment of their fellow animals in laboratories.

The Risks of Entrepreneurship

Although the risk of failure associated with starting a business is real and even high, we hear much in the media about success stories and little about those entrepreneurs who crash and burn. Perhaps the allure of entrepreneurship inevitably outshines any mention of the downside. Still, start-ups impose a higher than normal degree of risk, and we turn to the evidence for this now.

What is the specific nature of entrepreneurial risk? Different studies yield different results, but business consultant Patrick Henry reported that “75 percent of venture-backed startups fail.” Henry added that “this statistic is based on a Harvard Business School study by Shikhar Ghosh. In a study by Statistical Brain, ‘Startup Business Failure Rate by Industry,’ the failure rate of all U.S. companies after five years was over 50 percent, and over 70 percent after ten years.”

This figure might be enough to chill the enthusiasm of any would-be entrepreneur who believes an exciting or novel concept is enough to support a successful company with a minimal amount of time and effort and a great deal of other people’s money. Still, the ranks of start-ups expand prodigiously each month in the United States.

Even start-ups that beat the odds financially need to be watchful for a different sort of pitfall, an ethical failure that can be nourished by the very strengths that allow a company to get off the ground. That pitfall is the hubris or excessive pride that may characterize some entrepreneurs, particularly after they have had some initial success. Uber, an application-based, ride-hailing service, was founded in San Francisco by Travis Kalanick and Garrett Camp in 2009. If ever an idea matched the success potential of smartphones, it was this one. Offering a cheaper and more convenient service than hailing a cab on city streets, Uber was valued at $70 billion in 2017 and operated, with varying degrees of success, in seventy countries at that point. However, the corporate culture, especially at headquarters, left many observers aghast in early 2017 after an Uber engineer, Susan Fowler, blogged about her experiences there. Other employees substantiated much of her account, revealing an atmosphere rife with misogyny, homophobia, and sexual harassment.

This culture was permitted—even fostered—by Kalanick, who reigned unchecked for several years over what the New York Times labeled an “aggressive, unrestrained workplace culture.”

Muted grumblings from quarters within the company never received much attention outside the firm, allowing Kalanick to become a high-flying role model for would-be entrepreneurs who wished to emulate his success. A reckoning finally arrived when Uber’s board of directors asked him to resign his position as chief executive officer in June 2017.

Yet the workplace culture that prevailed during his years at the company was not unique to Uber. Many firms have experienced it. Holding destructive egos in check is an ethical challenge at many successful businesses, particularly at hard-riding start-ups. Founders and their start-up teams need to be aware of how deeply their attitudes toward others; their visible treatment of employees, customers, and clients; and their display of fairness will come to shape the company they are building. It is not enough for the founders to hypothesize, “we’ll get around to establishing the right protocols after we’re solvent.” Nor is it adequate to insist that standards of courteous business practice will naturally emerge on their own. An initial culture either of ethics or its absence will set a tone from the first day of business. If the founders believe these niceties are not required of them owing to their genius or confidence, such arrogance will displace ethics as a best practice. To believe otherwise is self-deception.

Why Successful Start-Ups Change as They Grow

A legendary example of a start-up that still inspires many today is the Hewlett-Packard Corporation (HP). Its origins lie in the efforts of Bill Hewlett and David Packard, two Stanford University classmates in the 1930s. Much like members of a garage band, they started their company in a real garage, and the firm has outgrown its humble beginnings many times over ((Figure)).

Start-ups are exciting. Many of their founders, like the late Steve Jobs of Apple, attain near-rock star status, and the companies can generate enormous profit. They allow many to do what they have always wanted to do and be their own bosses. Yet we often overlook the fact that even some of the most successful entrepreneurs experience many failures before they succeed, and long hours of hard work are typically required even for these failures. Smart entrepreneurs learn from their failures, but each lesson can be painful, frustrating, and time consuming.

A unique personality is required to weather the stresses and strains of a start-up, and it is a personality that tolerates much personal deprivation as it pursues the perceived highest goal of all, success for the firm, no matter what personal or collective costs might be entailed. The culture of entrepreneurialism allows for many business leaders and their staffs to be deprived of a portion of their humanity along the way to success. Thus, a preeminent ethical consideration is whether the result justifies this cost. At the very least, determined entrepreneurs must be advised of these possible sacrifices. They constitute the collateral damage of entrepreneurial dreams that any ambitious start-up founder should contemplate. Will one emerge at the end of the process as the sort of person one most wishes to be?

Even if a start-up becomes what its founders wish it to be—astronomically successful—inevitably it will change as it grows, acquires new locations, and hires more employees. These changes may eventually produce an organization with added layers—essentially, a hardened bureaucracy that slows down and complicates the management process. The company may no longer make essential decisions with the speed and nimbleness that once were possible. In short, success for a start-up is often accompanied by the risk of becoming, over time, exactly the traditional business structure its founders once rejected. So the founders of an entrepreneurial shop, and their successors, must guard against change that radically alters the original spirit of innovation and the free and rapid flow of information, even as the company grows. No business leader seeks bureaucracy, but it typically accompanies growth within any organization.

Particular problems that arise out of bureaucratization are additional layers of management, more codified procedures, and internal obstructions that surface as a business attempts to capitalize on its initial success. As more employees are added to the mix, the original team’s sense of common purpose can become diluted.

Max Weber (1864–1920), the German academic, economist, and sociologist, appreciated the consequences of bureaucracy years ago. In Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft [Economy and Society], published posthumously in 1925, he pointed out, “in the private economy, [bureaucracy emerges] only in the most advanced institutions of capitalism.”

Weber cemented the link between bureaucracy and capitalism further: “The development of the money economy [emphasis is Weber’s] . . . is a presupposition of bureaucracy. Today it not only prevails but is predominant.”

Because start-ups constitute an “advanced” feature of capitalism, and because bureaucracy presupposes a “money economy,” Weber prophesied that agile start-ups would be ripe for bureaucratization as they grow and age. Finally, he included this acknowledgement of the permanence of bureaucracy: “Once it is firmly established, bureaucracy is among those social structures which are the hardest to destroy.”

More recently, Michael A. Lutzker confirmed Weber’s testimony on the inevitability of bureaucracy: “The administrative function has of course been a pervasive element of all societies, ancient, medieval, and modern, but Weber was among the first to recognize the distinctive character of bureaucracy in the modern era.”

Simply put, the very same success that permits a start-up to flourish often produces bureaucratic structures that chip away at the free-flowing camaraderie that allowed a handful of founders to act instantly and with one mind. As the staff expands, employees’ ranks become more defined, titles and hierarchies appear, and individual achievements become harder to spot. This is what changes within a successful start-up, and it moves the company away from the more congenial atmosphere that characterized it at its outset. An original small partnership often becomes a corporate behemoth, and it takes on many of the attributes of those cubicle workplaces that frequently inspired its founders to strike out on their own in the first place.

All the better, then, if ethical practices that permit coworkers to bond as colleagues with a sense of commitment to each other and to their customers or clients emerge through a company’s trial-and-error experience at the outset. Only if the founders and initial staff emphasize treating all stakeholders with honesty, courtesy, and respect will the new firm stand a chance of indelibly cementing ethics into its operating matrix.

Entrepreneurial Culture

A fairly common characteristic of successful start-ups is charismatic, driven founders with take-no-prisoner competitive mentalities, as was illustrated earlier in this chapter in the example of Kalanick and the leadership values at Uber. After all, it takes a thick skin and powerful ego to get through the inevitable disappointments that confront a start-up leader. Often, however, even when these self-assured personalities evade the most egregious behavior of a Kalanick, they still remain very difficult for others to abide. Many companies discover that a different leadership ethos is necessary as they grow. Could entrepreneurs still succeed if they also embraced a humanistic leadership style at the outset, or would this invariably undermine the already low initial odds of success? It is a difficult problem with which many firms wrestle. Dedicated employees may be put off by demanding leaders who are harsh, giving little back to loyal workers even after achieving success. New employees may decide the working climate is less congenial than they anticipated and simply leave. This turnstile effect of workers voting on management with their feet constitutes an ethical judgment of repugnant leadership at the top.

These observations identify what may be unique to entrepreneurial culture. This is a combination of personality and management style often identified with those business leaders who strike out on their own, bring a start-up to life, and shape its initial business practices and culture on the job. If the enterprise is successful, the principles and philosophy of the founder become enshrined in the lore of the company, so that long after his or her departure, succeeding leaders find themselves beholden to the management philosophy exemplified from the early days of the firm.

As you seek the right leadership style to implement on the job, begin by asking precisely what kind of leader you would prefer to work for if you were not the boss. The answer you provide may very well be the best model to follow as you develop your own leadership personality, whether it is at a start-up or a more established company.

The first employees of a start-up realize what is at stake as the company tiptoes into new entrepreneurial waters. The founder may be the boss, but those associated with him or her sense a collaborative spirit that directly joins them to the founder as well as each other. There can be a genuine fraternity among those who have been with the firm since day 1 or shortly thereafter. Founding members of an entrepreneurial business are also often willing to undergo the strains and rigors attached to a start-up in return for an ownership stake in the company that allows them to profit handsomely from its later growth and success.

Newer staff, however, may not share this mindset. They may simply be seeking a secure position with a growing business rather than a chance to get in on the ground floor of a risky start-up. They will not necessarily have the tolerance for the demanding hours, chaos, and abrasive personalities that can characterize the early days of an enterprise. Can entrepreneurial founders shape a company’s culture so it can accommodate talented employees who are looking for a corporate culture that supports some work–life balance?

Consider also the ethical practices of an entrepreneur and the ethical expectations of employees. Suppose that one of the distinguishing features woven into the fabric of the start-up is the respect extended to customers or clients. An entrepreneur typically promises always to hold customers in the highest regard, never lie to them, and serve them well. Furthermore, suppose this entrepreneur successfully instills this same ethos among all employees from the outset. Respect for customers is intended to become a distinguishing feature of the business; even if it causes monetary loss to the company, this entrepreneur will not cheat a client or misrepresent the company’s services. Finally, presume that this ethos is embedded into the culture of the company while it is still in start-up mode.

Now, and literally against the odds, suppose the company becomes successful. This may signal the hardest time of all for the entrepreneur. Growth often accompanies success, and growth means, among other things, more employees. Not all these new hires will be as committed to the same degree of responsibility for customers. They will not necessarily set out to cheat clients, but they might lack the founder’s enthusiasm for the most honorable treatment of customers. How can an entrepreneur ensure that the initial commitment carries over to the second generation of leadership? He or she cannot simply order it to happen—human nature usually does not respond so easily. So entrepreneurs must do their best to ensure that their version of customer service, one that prioritizes respect for clients, is passed along to new employees. It may be ingrained in the longest-serving employees, but it must be nurtured to the point where it has the same significance for the newest hires. This is where leadership mettle is tested to the severest degree.

The Rise of Social Media

Relevant to any discussion of the influence and ethics of advertising is the emergence and dominance of social media, which now serve as the format within which many people most often encounter ads. Kelly Jensen, a digital-marketing consultant, observed that we inhabit a “Digital Era” in which “the internet is arguably the single most influential factor of our culture—transforming the way we view communication, relationships, and even ourselves. Social media platforms have evolved to symbolize the status of both individuals and businesses alike. . . Today, using social media to create brand awareness, drive revenue, engage current customers, and attract new ones isn’t optional anymore. Now it is an absolute ‘must.’”

These are bold claims—as are the claims of some advertising—but Jensen argues convincingly that social media platforms reach many consumers, especially younger ones, who simply cannot be captured by conventional advertising schemes. For those who derive most of the significant information that shapes their lives solely through electronic sources, nothing other than social media–based appeals stands much chance of influencing their purchasing decisions.

This upending of conventional modes of advertising has begun to change the content of ads dramatically. It certainly presents a new stage on which people as young as their teens increasingly rely for help in choosing what to buy. Many marketers have come to appreciate that if they are not spreading the word about their products and services via an electronic source, many millennials will ignore it.

Undeniably, a digital environment for advertising, selling, and delivering products and services functions as a two-edged sword for business. It provides lightning-quick access to potential customers, but it also opens pathways for sensitive corporate and consumer data to be hacked on an alarming scale. It offers astute companies nearly unlimited capacity to brand themselves positively in the minds of purchasers, but it simultaneously offers a platform for disgruntled stakeholders to assail companies for both legitimate and self-serving reasons.

Paul A. Argenti, who has taught business communication for many years at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth University, has studied this dilemma. As he put it, “mobile apps have created a new playground for cyber-thieves.”

And consumer advocates and purchasers alike “now use technology to rally together and fuel or escalate a crisis—posing additional challenges for the corporation” in the crosshairs of criticism. Finally, “the proliferation of online blogs and social networking sites has greatly increased the visibility and reach of all current events, not excluding large corporate”

bungling.

Regardless of the delivery platform, however, any threat that the advertising of unnecessary or harmful products may pose to our autonomy as consumers is complicated by the fact that sometimes we willingly choose to buy goods or services we may not necessarily require. Sometimes we even buy things that have been proven to be harmful to us, such as cigarettes and sugary drinks. Yet we may desire these products even if we do not need them. If we have the disposable income to make these discretionary purchases, why should we not do so, and why should advertisers not advise us of their availability?

Does Advertising Drive Us to Unnecessary Purchases?

By definition, advertising aims to persuade consumers to buy goods and services, many of which are nonessential. Although consumers have long been encouraged to heed the warning caveat emptor (let the buyer beware), it is a valid question whether advertisers have any ethical obligation to rein in the oft-exaggerated claims of their marketing pitches. Most consumers emphatically would agree that they do.

The award-winning Harvard University economist John Kenneth Galbraith directly addressed this issue in The Affluent Society, first published in 1958. In what he depicted as the “the dependence effect,” Galbraith bemoaned the power of corporations to harness wide-ranging advertising strategies, marketing efforts, and sales pitches to influence consumer purchasing decisions.

He asked whether it is possible for a sophisticated advertising campaign to create a demand for a product whose benefits are frivolous at best. If so, is there anything inherently wrong with that? Or are informed consumers themselves responsible for resisting tempting—though misleading—advertising claims and exercising their own best judgment about whether to buy a product that might be successful, not because it deserves to be but simply because of the marketing hype behind it? These questions remain fundamental to the manager’s task of creating ethical advertising campaigns in which truthful content is prioritized over inducing wasteful consumption.

Psychological appeals form the basis of the most successful ads. Going beyond the standard ad pitch about the product’s advantages, psychological appeals try to reach our self-esteem and persuade us that we will feel better about ourselves if we use certain products. If advertising frames the purchase of a popular toy as the act of a loving parent rather than an extravagance, for instance, consumers may buy it not because their child needs it but because it makes them feel good about what generous parents they are. This is how psychological appeals become successful, and when they do work, this often constitutes a victory for the power of psychological persuasion at the expense of ethical truthfulness.

Purchases are also affected by our notion of what constitutes a necessity versus a luxury, and that perception often differs across generations. Older consumers today can probably remember when a cell phone was considered a luxury, for instance, rather than a necessity for every schoolchild. On the other hand, many younger consumers consider the purchase of a landline unnecessary, whereas some older people still use a conventional phone as their main or even preferred means of communication. The cars and suburban homes that were once considered essential purchases for every young family are slowly becoming luxuries, replaced, for many millennials, by travel. Generational differences like these are carefully studied by advertisers who are anxious to make use of psychological appeals in their campaigns.

A consumer craze based on little more than novelty—or, at least, not on necessity or luxury in the conventional sense—is the Pet Rock, a recurring phenomenon that began in 1977. Pet Rocks have been purchased by the millions over the years, despite being nothing more than rocks. During the 2017 holiday shopping season, they retailed at $19.95.

Is this a harmless fad, or a rip-off of gullible consumers who are persuaded it can satisfy a real need? In the annals of marketing, the Pet Rock craze denotes one of the most successful campaigns—still unfolding today, though in subdued fashion—in support of so dubious a product.

As long as marketers refrain from breaking the law or engaging in outright lies, are they still acting ethically in undertaking influential advertising campaigns that may drive gullible consumers to purchase products with minimal usefulness? Is this simply the free market in operation? In other words, are manufacturers just supplying a product, promoting it, and then seeing whether customers respond positively to it? Or are savvy marketing campaigns exerting too much influence on consumers ill prepared to resist them? Many people have long asked exactly these questions, and we still have arrived at no clear consensus as to how to answer them. Yet it remains an obligation of each new generation of marketers to reflect on these points and, at the very least, establish their convictions about them.

A second ethical question is how we should expect reasonable people to respond to an avalanche of marketing schemes deliberately intended to separate them from their hard-earned cash. Are consumers obligated to sift through all the messages and ultimately make purchasing decisions in their own best interest? For example, does a perceived “deal” on an unhealthy food option justify the purchase ((Figure))? These questions have no consensus answers, but they underlie any discussion of the point at which sophisticated advertising runs headlong into people’s obligation to take responsibility for the wisdom of their purchases.

No one would argue that children are particularly susceptible to the ads commercial television rains over them regularly. Generally, young children have not developed sufficient judgment to know what advertised products are good for them and which ones have little or no benefit or perhaps can even harm. Research has even shown that very young children have difficulty separating what is real on television from what is not. This is especially so as it pertains to advertising for junk food. Savvy marketers take advantage of the fact that young children (those younger than age seven or eight years) view advertising in the same manner they do information from trustworthy adults—that is, as very credible—and so marketers hone pitches for junk food directly to these children.

What restrictions could we reasonably impose on those who gear their ads toward children? We could argue that they should take special care that ads targeting children make absolutely no exaggerated claims, because children are less capable of seeing through the usual puffery that most of us ignore. Children are more literal, and once they gain the ability to understand messages directed toward them, especially when voiced by adult authority figures, they typically accept these as truthful statements.

When adults make poor consumer choices, who is responsible? Is it ourselves? Is it our society and culture, which permit the barrage of marketing to influence us in ways we often come to regret? Is it the persuasive power of marketers, which we should rein in through law? Do adults have the right to some assistance from marketers as they attempt to carry out their responsibility to protect children from manipulative ads? We have no easy answers to these questions, though they have taken on special urgency as technology has expanded the range of advertising even to our smartphones.

Is Subliminal Advertising Real?

It may be possible for marketing to be unfairly persuasive in ways that overwhelm the better judgment of consumers. Whether it is the consumers’ responsibility to resist or marketers’ to tone down their appeals, or both, will continue to be debated. Yet the question of where responsibility lies when consumers are steered to make choices certainly has ethical ramifications.

Some psychologists and educational specialists claim that the very old and the very young are particularly ill prepared to exercise good judgment in the face of subliminal advertising, that is, embedded words or images that allegedly reach us only beneath the level of our consciousness. Other experts, however, disagree and insist that subliminal advertising is an urban myth that no current technology could create or sustain.

A U.S. journalist, Vance Packard, published The Hidden Persuaders in 1957, contending that subliminal messaging had already been introduced into some U.S. cinemas to sell more refreshments at the theaters’ snack bars. Alarms sounded at the prospect, but it turned out that any data on which Packard was relying came from James Vicary, a U.S. market researcher who insisted he had engineered the feat in a cinema in New Jersey. No other substantiation was provided, and Vicary’s claim was eventually dismissed as self-promotion, which he seemed to concede in an interview five years later. Although the immediate threat of subliminal advertising receded, some people remain concerned that such persuasion might indeed be possible, especially with the advent of better technologies, like virtual reality, to implement it.

A 2015 study at the University of South Carolina found that thirsty test subjects placed in the role of shoppers in a simulated grocery store could be subliminally influenced in their choice of beverages if they were primed by images of various beverage brands within fifteen minutes of acknowledging being thirsty. After that window of time passed, however, any impact of subliminal messaging receded.

So the scientific evidence establishing any real phenomenon of subliminal advertising is inconclusive. Put another way, the evidence to this point does not definitively demonstrate the existence of a current technology making subliminal marketing pitches possible. Given this, it cannot be clearly determined whether such a technology, if it did exist, would be effective. Another question is whether virtual reality and augmented reality might eventually make subliminal advertising viable. Real subliminal persuasion might render children, the elderly, and those with developmental disabilities more vulnerable to falling prey. Could even the most skeptical viewer resist a message so powerfully enhanced that the product can be sampled without leaving home? Would you be in favor of federal government regulation to prevent such ads? What sort of ethical imperatives would you be willing to request of or impose on sophisticated marketers?

Advertising plays a useful role in informing consumers of new or modified products and services in the marketplace, and wise purchasers will pay attention to it but with a discerning eye. Even the exaggerated claims that often accompany ads can serve a purpose as long as we do not unquestioningly accept every pitch as true.

How Insurance Works

The irony of insurance coverage of any sort is that we buy it hoping never to use it. Still, business and consumers alike appreciate that a catastrophic loss can be financially devastating and so they seek to protect against it. Insurance coverage does not prevent illness, accidents, or other unforeseen events from occurring, but it does offer a means to recover, at least partially, from the monetary costs associated with them.

Insurance policies constitute a form of contract between insurers and the insured. To reduce their losses in those situations in which they must pay on a claim, insurers do their best to attach high premiums to the coverage and identify exclusions and limits on it. They worry about being forced to pay out on frivolous and exaggerated claims, while policyholders fear that on the rare occasions when they will have to file a claim, their reimbursement will be minuscule and/or their future premiums will rise. From the perspective of the consumer, the guarantee of a fair payout on a claim is the only inducement to pay insurance premiums in the first place.

Insurance protections are, in fact, limited. In August 2017, Hurricane Harvey dumped fifty-two inches of rain on Houston, Texas, accompanied by fierce winds. Tens of thousands of homes, stores, factories, and other industrial sites suffered severe damage and flooding. Although normal homeowners’ and business owners’ insurance provides for loss due to hurricane winds, it does not cover loss due to flooding. As The Economist observed in the immediate aftermath of the hurricane, “whereas wind damage is covered under most standard insurance policies in America, flood insurance is a government-run add-on that far from all homeowners buy. As a result, of over $30 billion in property losses in Texas, only 40 percent may be insured.”

Not only do few homeowners buy flood insurance; few private insurers offer it. After all, most insurance carriers are for-profit, and companies would make little money insuring everyone against flood damage in flood-prone areas. It would be a losing proposition for any carrier to undertake, because insurance companies enjoy their highest returns when claims are few and payouts small. But the federal government is not a commercial broker and does not intend to make a profit from extending any sort of insurance coverage. For that reason, the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 established a way to dispense flood coverage through a federal agency. Today that supervising agency is the Federal Emergency Management Authority (FEMA), in partnership with the Department of Homeland Security ((Figure)). As of August 2017, just before Harvey struck, some five million households had taken out FEMA-sponsored flood coverage.

The California Earthquake Authority serves a similar function at the state level by managing privately funded insurance against earthquakes in California. The private brokers in the program make no profit from offering this coverage, but they do earn the right to offer (and profit from) other insurance in California.

The Ethical Dilemma of Insuring against Natural Disasters

We do not know with certainty what effect climate change will have on the incidence or severity of natural disasters (i.e., accidents that do not appear to have any direct human cause). We do know, however, that these events can be ruinously expensive, for the carriers that insure against them and for those who suffer them and must put their lives back together afterward.

Business writer Don Jergler said, for example, that “climate change has created a ‘wildfire crisis in California,’ which in turn is ‘causing a fire insurance predicament.’” California insurance commissioner Dave Jones warned in December 2017, after a particularly disastrous fire season in California, that “insurers may start to back off writing insurance in some areas [of the state],” and this would pose a crisis for homeowners who consequently lost insurance protection against losses caused by wildfires.

In Canada, too, “environmental risks linked to climate change are becoming important issues for insurers who need to consider their response to related risks and climate related losses whether arising from weather related events such as flood and storms or liability risks from third party claims.”

When insurance carriers must pay claimholders more often on claims arising from natural disasters, they lose money at a rate that could make them less willing to underwrite similar policies in the future. This unwillingness, in turn, would deny coverage against these disasters to an increasing number of individuals and companies. The high cost of disaster claims and subsequent shrinking of policy offerings are losses first experienced by the insurance industry, but they have rapid and dire consequences for policyholders.

Again, we come to the ethical conundrum as to what we might fairly expect from insurance carriers and from clients who seek to indemnify themselves against natural disasters. In regions where certain kinds of disasters are more likely to occur, is it reasonable to dictate that carriers still must provide coverage? If so, should we consider extending public subsidies to the carriers to protect them against catastrophic payouts? Should premiums be assigned on the basis of the incidence patterns and severity of risk associated with particular disasters in certain regions? With these questions, we return to the ethical consideration of what constitutes a reasonable profit for carriers and what premium policy holders ought to be charged for sufficient coverage.

The United States does not have the strong tradition of private/public ownership of industries, such as petroleum extraction or air travel that some other nations do.

Essentially, private/public ownership is an arrangement in which private (industry) and public (government) monies are combined to more safely bear an industry’s risk and also share in its profit. It is often a successful partnership. When we consider the scale of loss that can result from natural disasters, and the extent of the public’s need for protection from such loss, insurance may be a U.S. industry in which private/public ownership of some policies would be appropriate. The National Flood Insurance Program and the California Earthquake Authority are rare examples of public agencies managing insurance coverage that private insurers have declined to provide because the potential for profit is too low. Whether partnerships like this can and should be expanded, and whether they can be funded from federal and state budgets, are ethical questions for federal and state governments and policyholders alike.

Redlining: Discrimination in Insurance

A specific ethical challenge within the insurance profession is the tendency to engage in redlining. Redlining is the practice of assigning or denying coverage for certain policies, such as auto, homeowners, or business insurance, on the basis of the geographic neighborhoods where applicants for such coverage live, particularly inner-city neighborhoods. A variation on the practice is to charge considerably higher prices for the same coverage in different neighborhoods. Redlining assumes that the propensity for accidents, burglaries, fires, and other catastrophes is higher in some areas than others, so claims and costs will be higher for the insurance carrier.

At first glance, this practice appears to make economic sense from the perspective of both the insurer and the insured. Looking beneath the surface, however, reveals that redlined neighborhoods are often areas where racial and ethnic minorities live. No insurance carrier ever admits to engaging in discriminatory redlining (the term refers to an older practice by which insurance companies marked certain neighborhoods in red on print copies of coverage maps). Nearly every state in the United States forbids the practice. Yet a comprehensive 2017 study by Consumer Reports and ProPublica, a nonprofit research organization, indicated the phenomenon may remain very much a reality. This study focused on rates for auto insurance and found that for “decades, auto insurers have been observed to charge higher average premiums to drivers living in predominantly minority urban neighborhoods than to drivers with similar safety records living in majority white neighborhoods. Insurers have long defended their pricing by saying that the risk of accidents is greater in those neighborhoods, even for motorists who have never had one.”

The authors of the report compared auto insurance premiums and claims paid in four states (California, Illinois, Missouri, and Texas) and found similar results whether the carrier was Allstate, Geico, Liberty Mutual, or another. They contended “that many of the disparities in auto insurance prices between minority and white neighborhoods are wider than differences in risk can explain.”

This is significant because laws do typically permit premium rates to be set according to the incidence of claims filed within certain neighborhoods. Yet laws never allow rates to be based solely or predominantly on the race or ethnicity of the residents in different neighborhoods. This is the essence of prohibited redlining. Professionals in the industry do well to steer clear of this practice or even the appearance of it, and that is the overriding theme of this study.

Drawing back, the ethical challenge for any responsible carrier is to ensure that the race, ethnicity, or creed of any policyholder plays absolutely no role in the premiums assigned him or her. There is no defensible reason to base a carrier’s decision to extend or deny insurance coverage or assign the premium amount for it on these factors.

Multipayer Health Care in the United States

Typically in the United States, medical services have been dispensed through a multipayer health care system, in which the patient and others, such as an employer and a private health insurance company, all contribute to pay for the patient’s care. Germany, France, and Japan also have multipayer systems. In a single-payer health care system such as those in the United Kingdom and Canada, national tax revenues pay the largest portion of citizens’ medical care, and the government is the sole payer compensating those who provide that care. Contributions provided by employers and employees provide the rest. Both single- and multipayer systems help reduce costs for patients, employers, and insurers; both, especially single-payer, are also heavily dependent on taxes apportioned across employers and the country’s population. In a single-payer system, however, because payment for health care is coordinated and dispensed by the government, almost no one lacks access to medical services, including visitors and nonpermanent residents.

Many reasons exist for the predominance of the multipayer system in the United States. Chief among these is the U.S. tradition that doctors’ services and hospital care are privatized and run for profit. The United States has no federal health care apparatus that organizes physicians, clinics, and medical centers under a single government umbrella. Along with the profit motive, the fact that providers are compensated at a higher average rate than their peers abroad ensures that health care is more expensive in the United States than in most other nations.

The United States also has more health care professionals per citizen than most other countries, and more medical centers and clinics ((Figure)). One positive result is that the wait for most elective medical procedures is often shorter than in other countries, and travel time to a nearby medical facility is often less. Still, paying for health care remains one of the most controversial topics in the United States, and many question what it is that Americans gain from the current system to balance the cost. As an exhaustive study from The Commonwealth Fund asserted, “the United States spends far more on health care than other high-income countries, with spending levels that rose continuously over the past three decades. . . . Yet the U.S. population has poorer health than other countries.”

Besides its inefficiencies, the state of U.S. health care raises challenging ethical issues for professionals in the field and for patients as well. What happens if many poorer people cannot afford health care? Should doctors treat them anyway? Who is qualified to receive subsidized (insured) health care? In the absence of universal health care, which is generally ensured elsewhere by a single-payer system that entitles everyone to receive care at very low cost, can the United States truly boast of being the richest nation on Earth? Put another way, when the least materially advantaged in a country do not have access to quality health care, what is the worth such a nation patently is assigning to those human beings residing within it?

Supporters of the status quo for health care in the United States may point to state-of-the-art facilities as evidence of its success. Yet other nations, such as Australia, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, have equal levels of medical technologies available for patients and are given much more favorable marks for universal health insurance and accessibility by The Commonwealth Fund.

The High Cost of Prescription Drugs

Discussions of health care accessibility have become politically charged, so for now it is enough to observe that not only is medical care enormously expensive in the United States but so are prescription drugs. According to William B. Schultz, an attorney writing in the Washington Post in 2017, “in the past 35 years, the only significant victory in the battle to control drug prices has been the enactment of legislation that established the generic drug program at the FDA [Federal Drug Administration].” Otherwise, he stated, “prescription drug prices account for 17 percent of the nation’s health-care costs, up from 7 percent in the 1990s,” and “prescription drug spending accounts for nearly 20 percent of total program spending for Medicare, the largest of the governmental health-care programs.”

(Schultz is not entirely impartial; he is a partner in a law firm that represents generic drug providers, among other clients.)

The only way to recoup the enormous cost of developing new drugs, says the pharmaceutical industry, is to pass it along to consumers. Critics, on the other hand, assert that the much of the expense incurred within the industry results from the high cost of marketing new drugs. Wherever the truth lies in this debate, it remains that exorbitant prices for much-needed medicines dramatically reduce their social value when only a few individuals can actually afford to obtain them. What does it say of our priorities if we have the technology to create life-saving medicines but allow astronomic prices effectively to deny them to many patients who require them?

Paying for Health Care and Wellness

Within the multipayer system, many U.S. workers have traditionally looked to their employers or their unions to subsidize the cost of care and thereby make it available for them and their families. Many reasons explain why this is so. In contrast to the European and Canadian perspective, for example, in which both the state and employers are presumed to have an interest in and responsibility for underwriting the cost of health care, the traditional U.S. approach is that workers and their employers should be responsible for securing this coverage. This belief reflects an unease on the part of some about assigning services to the government, because this implies the need for a larger governing entity as well as additional taxes to sustain it. The sentiment also reflects a conviction on the part of some that self-reliance is always to be preferred when securing the necessities of life.

John E. Murray, a professor of economics at the University of Toledo, offered a related explanation. He cited the existence of industrial sickness funds in the United States, which arose in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These were monies “organized by workers through their employer or union [that] provided the rudiments of health insurance, principally consisting of paid sick leave, to a large minority of the industrial workforce of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.”

Murray stated that these funds declined in popularity not because they were ineptly administered or rendered bankrupt by World War I or the Great Depression but rather because they gave way to even more effective instruments in the form of group insurance policies offered by employers or labor unions.

So the U.S. worker’s experience differed from that of European labor in that much significant health care coverage was provided under the auspices of unions and employers rather than the state. Murray noted another source of relief for workers who experienced illness or injury that prevented them from working for any period of time, and that was charity.

Specific versions of charity were offered by religious organizations, including Christian churches and Jewish synagogues. Often, these religious bodies banded together to provide monetary benefits for sick or injured members of their own faith who might otherwise have been denied health coverage due to prejudice.

The U.S. social experience featured more ethnic and cultural diversity, especially in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, than was present in many European nations, and a downside is the racial, ethnic, and religious prejudice it inspired.

A final distinction Murray pointed to is the past opposition of the American Medical Association to any sort of state-sponsored insurance. Early supporters of industrial sickness funds, including some physicians, anticipated that most doctors would support these funds as pathways ultimately directed to state-provided coverage. Instead, in 1920, “the American Medical Association voted officially to state its opposition to government health insurance. A sociologist concluded that from this time to the 1960s, physicians were the loudest opponents of government insurance.”

By default, then, many U.S. workers came to rely more on their employers or unions than on any other source for coverage. However, this explanation does not answer the larger ethical question of who should provide health insurance to residents and citizens, a question that continues to roil politics and society in the nation even today.

More recently, large corporations have moved from providing one-size-fits-all insurance plans to compiling a menu of offerings to accommodate the different needs of their employees. Workers with dependent children may opt for maximum health care coverage for their children. Employees without dependents or a partner may elect a plan without this coverage and thereby pay lower premiums (the initial cost for coverage). Yet others might minimize their health-insurance coverage and convert some of the employer costs that are freed up into added pension or retirement plan value. Employers and workers have become creative in tailoring benefit plans that best suit the needs of employees ((Figure)). Some standard features of such plans are the copayment, a set fee per service paid by the patient and typically negotiated between the insurance carrier and the employer; the annual deductible, a preset minimum cost for health care for which the patient is responsible each year before the carrier will assume subsequent costs; and percent totals for certain medical or dental procedures that patients must pay before the carrier picks up the remainder.

Despite the intricacies of this customization, employers have found the group coverage policies they offer to be expensive for them too, more so with each passing year. Full health care coverage is becoming rarer as a standard employment benefit, and it is often available only to those who work full time. California, for example, stipulates that most workers need not be provided with employer health care coverage unless they work at least twenty hours a week.

Rising costs for both employers and employees have combined to leave fewer employees with health care benefits at any given time. Employees with limited or no coverage for themselves and their dependents often cope by cutting back on the medical attention they seek, even when doing so places their health at risk. Whenever workers must skip medical services due to cost considerations, this places both them and their employers in an ethical quandary, because both typically want workers to be in good health. Furthermore, when employees must deny their dependents appropriate health care, this dilemma is all the more intensified.

To try to reduce the costs to themselves of employee health care insurance coverage, some companies have instituted wellness programs to try to ensure that their workforces are as healthy as possible. Some popular wellness program offerings are measures to help smokers quit, workout rooms on work premises or subsidized gym memberships, and revamped vending and cafeteria offerings that provide a range of healthier choices. Some companies even offer employees bonuses or other rewards for quitting smoking or achieving specific fitness goals such as weight loss or miles walked per week. Such employer efforts appear benign at first glance, because these measures truly can produce better health on the part of workers. Still, ethical questions arise as to who the true beneficiaries of such policies are. Is it the employees themselves or the companies for which they work? Furthermore, if such measures were to become compulsory rather than optional, would it still reflect managerial benevolence toward employees? We discuss this in the following paragraphs.

Wellness programs were inspired by safety programs first created by U.S. manufacturers in the 1960s. These companies included Chrysler, DuPont, and Steelcase. Safety programs were intended to reduce workplace accidents resulting in injuries and deaths. Over the years, such programs slowly but steadily grew in scope to encompass the general health of employees on the job. As these policies have expanded, they also have fostered some skepticism and resistance: “Wellness programs have attracted their share of criticism. Some critics argue workplace programs cross the line into employees’ personal lives.”

Ann Mirabito, a marketing professor at the Hankamer School of Business at Baylor University agrees there is potential for abuse: “It comes back to the corporate leader. . . . The best companies respect employees’ dignity and offer programs that help employees achieve their personal goals.”

Employees who exercise, eat healthily, maintain their ideal weight, abstain from smoking, and limit their alcoholic consumption have a much better chance of remaining well than do their peers who undertake none of these activities. The participating employees benefit, of course, and so do their employers, because the health insurance they provide grows cheaper as their workers draw on it less. As Michael Hiltzik, a consumer affairs columnist for the Los Angeles Times, noted, “Smoking-cessation, weight-loss and disease-screening programs give workers the impression that their employers really care about their health. Ostensibly they save money too, since a healthy workforce is cheaper to cover and less prone to absenteeism.”

Certainly, employers are also serving their own interests by trying to reduce the cost of insuring their workers. But are there any actual disadvantages for employees of such wellness programs that employers might unethically exploit? Hiltzik suggested one: “The dark downside is that ‘voluntary’ wellness programs also give employers a window into their workers’ health profiles that is otherwise an illegal invasion of their privacy.”

Thus the health histories of workers become more transparent to their bosses, and, Hiltzik and others worry, this previously confidential information could allow managers to act with bias (in employee evaluation and promotion decisions, for instance) under cover of concern about employees’ health.

The potential for intrusion into employee privacy through wellness programs is alarming; further, the chance for personal health data to become public as a consequence of enrolling in such programs is concerning. Additionally, what about wellness rules that extend to workers’ behavior off the job? Is it ethical for a company to assert the right to restrict the actions of its employees when they are not on the clock? Some, such as researchers Richard J. Herzog, Katie Counts McClain, and Kymberleigh R. Rigard, argue that workers surrender a degree of privacy simply by going onto payroll: “When employees enter the workplace, they forfeit external privacy. For example, BMI [body mass index] can be visually calculated, smokers can be observed, and food intake monitored.” They acknowledge, however, that “protecting privacy and enhancing productivity can provide a delicate balance.”

The Affordable Care Act

Health care reform on a major scale emerged in the United States with the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA), in March 2010, during the Obama Administration. The ACA (so-called Obamacare) represents a controversial plan that strikes its opponents as socialist. For its supporters, however, it is the first effective and comprehensive plan to extend affordable health care to the widest segment of the U.S. population. Furthermore, like most new federal policies, it has undergone tweaks and revision each year since becoming law. The ACA is funded by a combination of payments by enrollees and supplemental federal monies earmarked for this task.

The ACA mandates a certain level of preventive care, a choice of physicians and health care facilities, coverage at no extra cost for individuals with preexisting health conditions, protection against the cancellation of coverage solely on the basis of becoming ill, and mental health and substance abuse treatment, all of which must be met by carriers that participate in the plan. The ACA also permits its holders to select from a number of marketplace plans as opposed to the limited number of plans typically offered by any given employer.

All in all, it is a far-reaching and complex plan whose full implications for employers and their employees have yet to be appreciated. Preliminary results seem to indicate that employer-provided coverage on a comprehensive scale remains a cheaper alternative for those workers eligible to receive it.

Given the general efficiency of group insurance policies provided by U.S. employers, an ethical issue for all managers is whether these policies offer the best care for the greatest number of employees and so should be the responsibility of management to offer whenever it is possible to do so. Current law requires all companies employing fifty or more workers to make insurance available to that part of their workforce that qualifies for such coverage (e.g., by virtue of hours worked). Is it right, however, to leave the employees of smaller firms to their own devices in securing health care? Even if the law does not require it, we hold that an ethical obligation resides with small businesses to do everything in their power to provide this coverage for their employees.

Evidence of the intense debate the act has engendered is the Trump administration’s attempts, beginning in January 2017, to repeal the ACA entirely, or at least to dilute significantly many of its provisions. Nearly immediately upon his inauguration, President Trump signed Executive Order 13765 in anticipation of ending the ACA. Also that same month, the American Health Care Act was introduced in the House of Representatives, again with an eye to eliminating or seriously weakening the existing act. Much political debate within both the House and Senate ensued in 2017, with proponents of the ACA seeking to ensure its survival and opponents attempting (but, as of this writing, failing) to repeal it.

The ACA represents the first far-reaching health care coverage to take effect since 1965, after many stalled or otherwise frustrated attempts. Since the passage that year of the Medicare and Medicaid Act, which provided health coverage to retired, elderly, and indigent citizens, many presidential administrations, Democrat and Republican alike, have worked to enlarge health care coverage for different segments of the national population. In addition to expanding eligibility for benefits, the Medicare and Medicaid Act had direct implications for business proprietors and their employees. For one, the act set up new automatic earnings deductions and tax schedules for workers and employers, and employers were made responsible for administering these plans, which help fund the programs’ benefits.

The future of the ACA appears to depend on whether a Democrat or Republican sits in the White House and which party controls the Senate and the House in the U.S. Congress. Although legislation does hinge on the political sentiments of the president and the majority party in Congress, what is ethical does not lend itself to a majority vote. So regardless of whether the ACA survives, is revised, or is replaced entirely by new health care legislation, the provision of health care will likely continue to pose ethical implications for U.S. business and the workers who are employed by it.

The ethical debate over universal health care coverage is larger even than business and its employees, of course, but it still carries immense consequences for management and labor irrespective of how the ACA or other legislation fares in the halls of government and the courts. An ethical dilemma for employers is the extent to which they should make health coverage available to their workers at affordable rates, particularly if federal and state government plans provide little or no coverage for residents and the costs of employer-provided coverage continues to climb.

State-Level Experiments with Single-Payer Health Care Plans

Against the backdrop of federal attempts to institute national health care over the past several decades, some individual states in the United States have used their own resources to advance this issue by proposing mandated health care coverage for their citizens. For example, in April 2006, Massachusetts passed An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Heath Care, the first significant effort at the state level to ensure near-universal health care coverage.

The Massachusetts act created a state agency, the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, to administer the extension of health care coverage to Massachusetts residents. In many ways, it served as the most significant precursor of and guide for the federal ACA, which would follow approximately four years later. By many accounts, the Massachusetts legislation has achieved its purposes with few negative consequences. As Brian C. Mooney, reporting in the Boston Globe, put it about five years after the act’s passage: “A detailed Globe examination [of the implementation of the act] makes it clear that while there have been some stumbles—and some elements of the effort merit a grade of ‘incomplete’—the overhaul, after five years, worked as well as or better than expected.”

The proposed Healthy California Act (SB 562) is another example. SB 562 passed in the California State Senate in June 2017. However, the Speaker of the Assembly, the lower house of the legislature, blocked a hearing of the bill at that time, and a hearing is necessary for the bill to advance to ratification. A new effort was initiated in February 2018 to permit the bill finally to be considered by the lower house. (Two differences between the California bill and the Massachusetts Act include the number of state residents who would be affected. Massachusetts has a population of about seven million compared to California’s nearly forty million. A second distinction is that SB 562 is constitutes a single-payer plan, whereas the Massachusetts Act does not.)

Single-payer health care plans essentially concentrate both the administration of and payment for health care within one entity, such as a state agency. California’s effort is a very simple plan on its face but complex in its implementation. Here is how Michael Hiltzik summarized the intent of California Senate Bill 562: “The program would take over responsibility for almost all medical spending in the state, including federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, employer-sponsored health plans, and Affordable Care Act plans. It would relieve employers, their workers and buyers in the individual market of premiums, deductibles and copays, paying the costs out of a state fund.”

The bill would create a large, special program apparatus tentatively entitled Healthy California. It is contentious on many fronts, particularly in that it would create the largest single-payer health insurance plan sponsored by a U.S. state and the scope of the plan would necessitate a huge bureaucracy to administer it as well an infusion of state monies to sustain it. Furthermore, it would extend health care coverage to all residents of the state, including undocumented immigrants.

A specific hurdle to passage of Healthy California is that it would cost anywhere from $370 billion to $400 billion and would require federal waivers so California could assume the administration of Medicare and Medicaid in the state as well as the federal funds currently allotted to it. All these conditions would be enormously difficult and time consuming to meet, even if the federal government were sympathetic to California’s attempts to do so. In 2018, that was decidedly not the case.

Is free or inexpensive access to health care a basic human right? If so, which elements within society bear the principal responsibility for providing it: government, business, workers, all these, or other agencies or individuals? This is a foundational ethical question that would invoke different responses on the part of nearly everyone you may ask.

As a nation, the United States has usually preferred a system predicated on private health care providers and insurers to pay for it. This arrangement has worked best in instituting high-quality care with minimal delays even for elective medical procedures. It has systematically failed, however, in establishing any sort of universal dispensation that is affordable for many citizens.

In the early twenty-first century, the United States is moving ever so slowly and with plenty of hiccups toward some degree of national or state management of health care. Precisely where these efforts will take us may not be clear for the next several years. The political, economic, and ethical dimensions of public management of our health care drive considerable controversy and very little agreement.

Telecommuting and Its Advantages

The term telecommuting emerged in the 1970s to describe the practice of working at a specific location, whether the employee’s home or an alternate office, to reduce commuting time to a centrally located office space or store. “Telework” was greatly facilitated by new telecommunications technology, including the Internet, e-mail, and mobile phones. Today, telecommuting means any mode of working at a remote location (home or other space) by virtue of an electronic connection and/or telephone and encompasses a variety of employment types, from gig assignments to part-time contract work to traditional full-time employment.

The most recent Census data reveal that almost four million U.S. employees skip the commute for at least part of each week, and according to a 2012 poll, worldwide, one in five workers telecommutes frequently, with approximately 10 percent working from home every day.

(Figure) depicts the growth in telecommuting in the United States, China, India, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Clearly, employers are embracing telecommuting as a tool for flexibility, on a scale from occasional use to full-time implementation.

Employees can connect to networked company computers from home and use work-enhancing tools on their laptops, tablets, and smartphones to make real-time connections by voice, text, or video with inexpensive or free applications (or “apps”) like FaceTime and Skype. Other software solutions, like GoToMeeting or WebEx, make setting up and even recording a synchronous meeting with sound and video possible for even the smallest companies at fairly low cost. The communication and productivity tools that facilitate telecommuting can only grow in number and sophistication. Virtual reality tools like Microsoft’s Mixed Reality allow a worker in one location to communicate with the holograph of another person in real time. For example, this technology could enable a job interview with a remote candidate. Of course, the use of technology brings with it the need to ensure information security and protection against hacking, including guaranteeing the authenticity of the persons engaging via this technology.

Employers allow employees to telecommute for a variety of reasons. First, it is a powerful recruiting tool for people who want to balance their work and personal lives. It allows employees to work a more flexible schedule to care for children or older relatives while maintaining a career and earning income.

Individuals with ability challenges also prefer the flexibility that telecommuting affords them.

Telecommuting also reduces the hours that employees spend traveling to and from the job and can help keep cars off the road. Fewer workers commuting equals less crowding on public transportation.

Fewer cars mean less air pollution as well. The average U.S. employee (who commutes 30 miles and 60 minutes per day) will save more than $1000 on gas per year by telecommuting (along with associated costs of parking and vehicle upkeep and insurance).

Remote workers can continue to do their jobs despite weather conditions that impede travel. They are not exposed to sick coworkers’ germs and may take fewer sick days (which sometimes translates to fewer sick days company-wide). Remote employees are also seldom late for work or early to leave when their workday starts at home.

More broadly, there is a good deal of evidence suggesting that telecommuting has beneficial effects on worker productivity. For example, a call-center study reported in the Harvard Business Review found that telecommuting employees made 13.5 percent more calls, resigned their positions at only half the usual rate, and had much higher job satisfaction compared with employees who did not telecommute.

The Colorado Department of Transportation, in a study of telecommuting productivity for a branch that issued permits, found 48 percent faster turnaround times for issuing permits and 5 percent more calls for telecommuters.

Furthermore, studies of JD Edwards teleworkers found them to be 20 to 25 percent more productive than their office colleagues; American Express employees who worked from home were 43 percent more productive than workers in the office.

With none of the distractions of a traditional office setting, like water-cooler gossip and long lunches, and with the happier attitude, workers tend to enjoy when they have control over their work lives. Telecommuting facilitates increased efficiency and productivity and also typically results in higher retention of workers, thereby reducing recruiting and training costs for firms.

Studies have shown that a person who commutes for an hour a day experiences added stress, anxiety, social isolation, and possibly depression.

Perhaps that is why companies that implement telecommuting experience less absenteeism overall.

It may also be easier to collaborate when not sharing a limited amount of space (such as in a cubicle forest), and people may be more willing to share resources with one another when the total number of workers present at the facility is reduced. Another point is that there may be less chatting and gossip among remote workers who are not in daily contact with each other or their colleagues.

Employers may be attracted to telecommuting for other reasons. Having remote employees can reduce office-space costs.

In fact, a company can consider expanding even when there is no available real estate or capital to enlarge or improve the physical facilities. Companies that hire remote employees can also widen their pool of potential applicants.

They can choose recruits with better job skills than the local population could provide and expand their sales and marketing territory by hiring employees based in a new area.

Finally, there are many external environmental benefits of telecommuting. We have seen that a business that reduces total office space also reduces its impact on the environment.

Remote workers would increase their individual consumption of utilities while working at home, but chances are that their home’s energy consumption partially continues during the time spent at a traditional job as well ((Figure)).

The Drawbacks of Telecommuting

In 2013, Yahoo’s then–chief executive officer (CEO), Marissa Mayer, ended the company’s work-at-home policy, contending that the change would boost communication and collaboration by bringing people back to the office to work with their colleagues face to face.

IBM, Aetna, and Bank of America followed her lead, citing a greater need for collaborative communication to compete with smaller firms.

A backlash in the media followed this announcement, because working at home is popular among Yahoo employees. Yahoo has since shown greater flexibility in allowing some employees to once again work at home.

But recent research does reveal that employees collaborate more creatively when they meet to discuss projects face to face. This finding has important implications for firms dependent on research and development for their future growth. In fact, Steve Jobs designed the Pixar facility to increase the likelihood of conversations that would promote idea generation.

Corporate culture is not easy to convey over distance. The remote worker might have developed certain working habits at a different company with a different corporate culture (sometimes in another country). It can be challenging to help employees adapt to the culture of a new company when they work remotely.

It is also more difficult for employers to monitor some kinds of work-related progress when an employee is working remotely. The likelihood of miscommunication increases when everything must be transmitted electronically or virtually.

A manager cannot “manage by walking around” when the worker is remote. There are no incidental opportunities to witness a worker interacting with a client or customer.

Workers may also be more hesitant to ask for direction on a project. Some managers worry that employees will slack off if there is no one there to watch them.

The remote worker may have qualms about privacy when his or her personal life inevitably intersects with the workday (as when a family member walks into the room or the dog barks during a conference call).

Children may be confused when it seems like their parent is home but is not available for meals or play or homework help. It may be difficult for remote workers to maintain a work-life balance when their home becomes their office (especially if their hours are flexible). Workers may have to set aside living space for a home office and spend money to buy computing equipment, a desk, and other supplies.

Furthermore, it is difficult for an on-site technology team to provide technical assistance or secure data at the level the company may require when people are working at home. Moreover, when the definition of the workplace begins to blur, who is responsible for injuries that occur on the job at home? The employer is unable to exercise the same control over safety measures that holds in a traditional workplace.

There may also be productivity concerns. Some remote workers will rise to the challenge of motivating themselves to work diligently. In fact, studies have shown that some remote workers are more productive than their traditional counterparts.

But it is not easy to sort potential employees into workers and procrastinators without some period of trial and error, which may be costly.

Not all fields are equally suited to telecommuting. Some jobs require consistent in-person contact with clients or customers, such as counseling, physical therapy, and medicine.

Some industries need the highest computer security, such as banking and finance. Other work settings, such as law enforcement, have increased needs for building security that would make working remotely an unsafe alternative for employees.

The biggest drawback of telecommuting for the individual employee is the bias that studies reveal in employer attitudes. Most managers, after all, attained their status in a traditional job. When some employees telecommute and others do not, those who are in the physical presence of the employer every day can more easily make an impression (good or bad) simply by interacting with their manager. There is also some indication that employees who opt for a nontraditional work arrangement may be penalized if they are perceived as lazy or less dedicated than those who maintain traditional work hours. Employers might have a stronger recollection of the work produced by the employee they see regularly than they do of the work a remote employee is submitting online. Therefore, promotions and important projects may go to employees who are more visible. The remote employee might eventually be left without equal footing in the push for increased pay and status.

The Ethical Challenges of Telecommuting

Ethical employers must juggle the potential ethical challenges of managing remote employees, including developing trust in remote workers, encouraging trust among project team members when some are working remotely, keeping equity in mind when reviewing the performance of remote and in-office staff, and deciding which employees get to work remotely. Supervisors also must guard against abuse of the remote-work opportunity, maintain the security of the remote employee’s work-related data, foster a level of collaboration that is vital to product development, and protect the remote worker’s safety.

How can managers meet these challenges?

Although it is easy to consider allowing telecommuting for those who simply ask, managers should instead categorize jobs (not people) by their suitability for remote work. Best Buy recently announced it would modify its work-from-home policy for employees in its corporate office, changing it from a perquisite (or “perk”) of employment to one granted by management on a case-by-case basis and mindful of the circumstances of individual workers.

Managers should also carefully set up a framework of policies to govern at-home work and ensure fairness. For example, there could be a standard for how much time each person should spend in the office. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology created a remote pilot project in its Executive Education Program.

Employees were encouraged to work remotely two or three days each week and to be present in the office each Wednesday. After six months of the pilot program, 100 percent of the employees recommended its continuation.

Managers should set clear expectations for remote workers, such as maintaining professionalism while working and accomplishing a certain volume of work or number of tasks by a certain time. Those who meet these goals should be rewarded. In the interests of fairness and equity, neither expectations nor rewards should differ from those established for in-house workers.

The ethical employer communicates trust in his or her employees when implementing telecommuting. That trust is based on respect for the employee’s motivation and the recognition that the employee has needs that are important in establishing work-life balance.

Perhaps the employer’s vote of confidence in the employee’s ability to work well remotely is the reason that productivity tends to increase in successful telecommuting programs.

The (Figure) caption lists some of the best practices of successful telecommuting programs.