Executive Summary
Organisational factors or ‘bad barrels’ are said to have instigated many occurrences of corporate corruption and deviant behaviour (Wharton 2002, p 2), involving large numbers of active or passive participants; these are ‘rarely the result of a few bad apples’ (Murphy 2007, p 7). The AWB case is a clear example of corporate culture and other systemic failures influencing and defining an organisation’s decision making and its ethical posture.
This report addresses the underlying organisational causes of the AWB scandal, whereby AWB paid kickbacks to Iraq in defiance of the rules of the Oil-for-Food programme, instituted by the United Nations (Cole 2006) In so doing, it will consider the evidence and conclusions
…show more content…
To bribe or not to bribe? That was the AWB’s $300 million ethical question.
4. Framing the AWB case
4.1 Utilitarianism
This report examines the overwhelming impact of organisational and systemic failures on the ethical behaviour of those agents involved in the AWB scandal. As business ethics concerns how business agents ‘ought’ to act (Micewski & Troy 2007, p. 18), it is useful to have an ethical frame of reference when analysing the actions and outcomes in the AWB case. Utilitarian ethics is used as this reference point in the report, as it is recognised as underpinning much economic literature and government decision-making (Pickens 2005, pp.16-17).
Utilitarianism is an ethical approach that in its simplest form promotes the greatest good for the greatest number, or seeks to maximise the benefits over the costs. It is consequential in its focus, concentrating on what is considered a good outcome of an action relative to the group’s notion of good and bad - the outcome determines the ethical appropriateness of an activity. Within this framework, a business should seek to maximise its profitability, market power or other benefit to the least detriment of others. Self-interest is dominant, with something being done for a personal or collective benefit, not because it is ‘the right
153). In essence, utilitarianism is maximizing everyone’s happiness, which can almost be considered a universal acceptance (Boylan, 2009, p. 154). Jeremy Bentham is one of the proponents of modern utilitarianism and states, “nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure” (Boylan, 2009, p. 154). In business utilitarianism shares the nonmoral views that the best decision that had no moral conflict would be to maximize profit, which would be the greatest good of the company and its employees (Boylan, 2009, p. 162). Utilitarianism does not always hold true in some minds. Utilitarianism does not take into account motives of the people (Boylan, 2009, p. 165). “If one acts in accord with the general principle and its corollaries, then one is moral” (Boylan, 2009, p. 165).
Although utilitarianism appears to be a simplistic theory, it in actuality is one of a more complex nature. There are many variables to consider when evaluating a utilitarian path of ethics. For example, whose happiness is more important and should be maximized? When organizations decide which is the better path to take for the group, they put into consideration only their own
Utilitarianism is a practical doctrine that is widely accepted in modern society’s economics, politic, and ethics. Utilitarian is driven by the pursuit of happiness. For a utilitarian, everything that will be helpful in the pursuit is considered good. In utilitarianism, an action is good or evil based on its consequences on the happiness of an individual and the happiness of the community. Similar to other doctrine, utilitarianism is not without a flaw. Bernard Williams, in his paper Utilitarianism and Integrity, voices his primary concern in regard to utilitarianism by providing two concrete examples to demonstrate how utilitarianism is only concerned about the consequences of the action and not about the means used to get there. Williams argues that utilitarianism fails to acknowledge the integrity of a person because the ultimate goal of utilitarianism is to produce the greatest happiness overall.
Let’s start by gaining an understanding of what utilitarianism means. The definition given to us earlier in our textbook, Exploring Ethics, in the article, Strengths and Weaknesses of Utilitarianism, it defines act utilities as an act that, “is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative”. This goes back to the tedious task of trying to analyze countless number of alternatives and figure out which one brings about the most
Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory. It concerns how to evaluate a large range of things that involve choices communities or groups face. These choices include policies, laws, human’s rights, moral codes,
Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics supporting the idea that the morally correct course of action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing totally benefit and minimizing suffering. By ‘utility’ in this sense we mean ‘happiness’ or ‘pleasure, or similar. Although there are many varieties,
Brenda Franklin had been serving Allied Tech for the past 8 years. As any other organisations, Brenda used to be a part of the lunch hour conversations with her colleagues. One day when her colleagues were discussing about corruption and politics, something occurred to her. As a result she prepared a list called “Ethically Dubious Conduct” and pasted it on the common notice board. Her colleagues were taken by surprise. Brenda was now anticipating the next lunch where she was expecting her list to be analysed among her colleagues.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that judges an action on its outcomes and aims to maximize happiness. This means finding the action that generates the “greatest good for the greatest number”.
Utilitarianism is the moral doctrine that we should always act to produce the greatest possible balance of good over bad for everyone affected by our actions (Shaw & Barry, 62).
Utilitarianism is the most common ethical theory practiced in the business world today. Utilitarianism states that an action is right or wrong based on the end results.
Section One: 1. What is, “Utilitarianism” and why is it important to the study of businessgovernment relations? Utilitarianism is a usually described as the greatest happiness for the greatest number. It reflects the action that produces the most happiness for people; meaning that an action is good if it produces a higher ultility of happiness. The thoery treats all members of a society equally, balances the inequalities in wealth between rich and poor people and justifies human acts. For example, consider a single mother stealing baby formlua. In this case, the mother is not harming anyone else and her baby is getting the food it needs. The happiness of the mother is justified because her actions did not harm anyone, and her baby having
Utilitarianism is a teological ethical framework that offers a way to analyze the transistor company’s dilemma. Utilitarianism is consequentialist in nature, meaning that the theory only takes in account the consequences of an action to determine if that action is morally right. More specifically, Kay (1997) explains “utilitarian ethics defines morality in terms of the maximization of net expectable utility for all parties affected by a decision or action” (p. X). For example, it would be acceptable to a utilitarian to kill one person if it meant saving two more people. This is in stark contrast with deontological ethics, which prohibits actions that use people as a means to an end.
Utilitarianism is a limiting ethical theory that fails to grasp ethically reality. “The greatest good for the greatest number” is not ethically right in every situation. Although the majority would benefit, the minority will heavily suffer. Considering the overall consequences of our actions, the good may not always outweigh the bad, but this does mean that the good will be the ethically right thing to do. One may think they are “maximizing the overall good,” but in reality, harming many.
Business ethics since the beginning of this decade has been slowly eroding; if we are to believe what we see and hear in the media. Several times a day, one can view some derogatory piece of information concerning a business. However, it must also be considered that these companies are contributing to that stigma. There have been a variety of companies and individuals who have figured prominently in the media concerning their unethical behavior.
Utilitarianism is one of the most commonly used ethical theories from the time it was formulated by Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill in the nineteenth century. In his work, Utilitarianism, Bentham “sought to dispel misconceptions that morality has nothing to do with usefulness or utility or that morality is opposed to pleasure” (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 53). To simplify the utilitarian principle, which is one of utility, one can surmise that morality is equated with the greatest amount of utility or good for the greatest number of people (MacKinnon, 2012). Also, with its orientation to the “end or goal of actions” (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 54), Utilitarianism thus, espouses the consequentialist principle, e.g., the evaluation of any human act lies not so much in the nature of the act or the drive behind the act but rather the result of the act (MacKinnon, 2012).