Posted at 10.13.2018
Globalisation is 'the procedure for transformation of local phenomena into global. . . detailed marketing communications' (8). Because of globalisation organisations trade and converse on an international level through integration. Creating the 'Flattering of the Globe' (9) as said by T. L Friedman mentioning how the world is becoming a smaller place, people claim globalisation has affected people worldwide to discover the best as well as for the most detrimental.
Multi-national Companies (MNC's) have been affected favorably because they can operate in Less Economically Developed Country (LEDC) permitting them to cut costs producing a more prosperous profits. A MNC is an organisation that 'works internationally in more than one country'. The benefit of operating globally is firstly that the united states accommodating the MNC benefits through job opportunities which will assist the current economic climate which can show a reduced amount of the gap between the MEDCs (More Financially Developed Country) and LEDCs. However MNCs can exploit the international labor force in LEDCs, because legislation in LEDCs change from MEDCs so MNCs such as Nike use this to their benefits. Nike is a MNC that is seen as working within an unethical manner worldwide. Therefore the ethical argument begins here into the ethical factors that MNCs face when operating in LEDCs across the world and how globalisation has actually afflicted Nikes business ethics. This essay can look at different aspects of ethics towards Nike and the reaction to globalisation. And whether Nike have helped or hindered LEDCs economies.
The interpretation of ethics is based around the difference of right and wrong as explained by Aristotle in his 'doctrine of mean'. There is absolutely no universal description of ethics as Peter Performer proves by asking a straightforward question of 'why should I work morally?' (5). It is impossible to have a fixed response to the question since it is dependant on what a person's belief of ethics is.
Aristotelian ethics is termed by 'self realization' (10) and talks about what sort of 'person acts relating to their aspect and realizes his full potential' and also how 'mother nature does nothing in vain'. So a person will be bad due to un-natural upbringing. Effortlessly everyone is good, so for someone to be unethical it's the un-natural means that cause this. So associated with Nike and the individuals making the decisions, have that they had an un-natural upbringing that has made them act unethically globally? Morally have they not developed or matured enough? As explained by Kohlberg and his research of the degrees of moral development (1) (appendix A)
Nike in LEDCs is in times where they are not required to be honest on how they ought to treat their workforce. With the workforce unaware of their rights and exactly how they must be treated places Nike in a predicament and questions Nikes business ethics anticipated to globalisation.
Globalisation can be seen as influencing Nikes ethics in a confident way for both company and employees in the LEDCs. Nike moving into a LEDC contributes to employment opportunities, e. g. The Nike vegetable in China employees 4000 people meaning an extra 4000 employed in that country. Deontological ethics which is the 'Research of work' (7) and therefore some activities are obligatory regardless of the effects would see this as moral behaviour shown by Nike globally. Nike are accomplishing their duty by contributing to their Corporate Friendly Responsibility (CSR) by providing jobs. Kantianism also follows deontological ethics and believes that implications are irrelevant to how ethical someone is (1). Kantianism(1)argues the outcomes are irrelevant because someone can have bad motives but can bring about good outcomes, this will not make the problem ethical credited to unethical intentions. Regardless it needs to be considered the argument could work both ways, motives could be good however the outcomes could be bad which would be acceptable to Deontology/Kantianism. Nike is pursuing their ethical work corresponding to Deontological ethics by giving job in those LEDCs where occupation is scarce and the current economic climate is deprived.
Another view to show that Nike is behaving ethically is if we consider it from a Hedonistic view point. Hedonism means the 'minimising of pain and maximizing of pleasure' (11) and is convinced that the majority people thrilled is the most ethical. Relating it to Nike, exploiting and making 4000 employees miserable in the China herb is this better than making an incredible number of customers disappointed because they can not deliver or deliver the merchandise at a minimal price. So matching to Hedonism ethics Nike is functioning ethically since it is opting to please almost all and doing what it considers as the 'higher good' (1). So in the idea made above globalisation has influenced Nike's business ethics in a confident way. To add to Hedonism there is Cyrenaic Hedonism(7)view point which talks about instant gratification somewhat than deferred gratification. (12) (Appendix B) This point of view looks at the short term affects or satisfying people only with the thinking about 'here and know' and this tomorrow is a later date and we should worry about that when it comes. 'A man hath no better thing under sunlight, than to eat, and also to drink, and also to be merry. . . '
You could say that Nike looks at its company life-style employing this view point as a result of way it is behaving. It doesn't necessarily means they are behaving unethically; it just means that they are only living for today which a lot of men and women do in general so you cannot maintain it against a corporation for its way of life. However Nike happens to be till today polluting the environment, it may well not of acquired a great impact yet but more than likely it has a detrimental influence on them same employees and environment leading to further problems with global warming in the long-term (13). There isn't a problem with Nike regarding to Cyrenaic Hedonism, but it is unethical behavior as a result of selfishness because they're not considering the future as it pertains to it affecting other people for their current activities. This leads to the Consequentialist view point of how Nike is behaving unethically since it is not thinking about the consequences of the actions.
There is the idea of how they are simply providing careers for LEDCs but this will not mean these are supporting LEDC. Nike is merely increasing the space between the LEDCs and the MEDC in the long-term. So all the LEDCs are used in an evil circuit of global capitalism where the rich stay wealthy and the indegent remain poor(3). Taking us back again to the debate of 'good' and 'bad' and we can web page link this to Consequentialist way of thought, where the most ethical way is not following motives but what the results of their actions are. So if we were to see Nikes ethics from a Consequentialist point of view it would seem they are not following business ethics anticipated to globalisation as a result of consequences of these activities being negative in the sense that folks in the LEDCs will work slave labour with no option but to take Nikes career 'offer' up(2). With all the wages Nike provides to the workforce it is something that preserves them however, not remove them from the poverty routine. If indeed they really wished to follow business ethics internationally they would pay salary that will in actuality benefit employees and that will make a positive change to their overall economy. This may be associated with Utilitarianism perspective which is a type of Consequentialist theory. And it mainly focuses on once again the power of the action and motives (1).
As Bentham quoted as utilitarianism is 'the greatest good for the greatest quantity', this relates to the perception of Hedonistic views. So Utilitarianism and Hedonism do match one another well hence creating Hedonistic Utilitarianism(14). The two individuals encircling Hedonistic Utilitarianism are Bentham and Mills. Bentham's view around Nikes business ethics is 'the greatest happiness for the best number', as mentioned, it is better to please millions of Nike customers at the price of a few thousand employees get pain. Mill however would argue it's the quality of the pleasure and pain that is vital for Nike to be following business ethics internationally. Mill would rather see millions of Nike customers unsatisfied with the Nike products than to see thousands of Nike employees going right through slave labour. So Nike needs to not only consider the number of their business ethics but additionally the quality of their ethics. As Mill would say globalisation in Nikes situation has induced Nikes business ethics to be unethical because of the pain and aggravation the Nike workforce is certainly going through scheduled to Nike not taking into consideration the consequences. Nevertheless the argument could once more be identified from another angle, as i have stated previously about Hedonist views and exactly how positioning 4000 employees in hurting may be justifiable to some due to pleasure the an incredible number of customers may get when they have the ability to acquire the Nike product or purchase at a minimal price.
In this moment in time Nike is wanting to screen their business ethics globally credited to a plummet in sales and earnings. This was because of the bad marketing coverage Nike received about their poor wages, poor working conditions, Sweatshops, child labour. . . the list goes on. Conveniently their desire for CSR only increased when gains decreased(15+16). This according to Virtue Ethics approach is seen as unethical behavior. Virtue ethics does not check out motives or results like Deontology and Consequentialist but instead it looks at the moral personality of any person or in this situation the moral persona of Nike. Virtue Ethics would label Nike for its attempt of experiencing a new approach to CSR as in the end unethical. Regardless of whether Nike is benefiting their workers worldwide, because of the sudden take towards CSR to somebody who believes from a Virtue Ethics point of view, no matter, because they have got still got an undesirable moral personality and their methodology towards CSR and ethics are for the wrong reasons and are only there because of their overall personal gains which is profits. However Consequentialist and Deontological views would not agree with the Virtue Ethics method of ethical behaviour, Consequentialist main thought is the final results and deontology is the 'technology of obligation'.
In this essay i have described different view factors and how they would understand MNCs such as Nike and judge it according to their beliefs as being moral or unethical globally. The main universities of thoughts being Deontology, Consequentialist and Virtue Ethics. Nikes situation could be looked at with a non-cognitive attitude, meaning that the assertions made cannot be determined whether they are right or wrong universally, and the response would depend on personal values(Appendix) 'there is nothing at all either good or bad, but considering helps it be so'(17)
Once again thought must surround the actual fact that 'one mans terrorist, is another mans savoir'. The world is discouraging with Nikes procedures but at the same time those same people may be aiding Nike by purchasing their products. This shows the globe is a hypocrite and that means you cannot judge honest behaviour especially internationally because of the level of variety. Despite the fact that there can be an understanding of natural Law, which is similar to unwritten rules which may have been exceeded from generation to generation which go without expressing. Overall I feel that Nike is not assisting the people of LEDCs whatever the work provided and the only real known reasons for them to operate abroad is to maximise their own benefits even if it means to spoil someone's life also to keep them LEDCs improperly developed. The items made about Nikes unethical behavior above can be argued depending on honest view point however in my opinion some of the acts completed by Nike such as slave labour are seen as universally wrong and I am unable to understand how they have got were able to justify it till today. If Nike would like promote CSR they must try to eliminate poverty by intervening in the poverty pattern for these LEDCs.