Enterprise managers often face the moral tests of implementing business enhancements that would improve the welfare of an organization but reduce the cash flow. In many instances, business owners prefer to maintain the status quo to safeguard profits. According to Tempels et al. (2017), businesses can subject stakeholders to structural injustices, such as oppressive labor laws and irresponsible dumping habits. Business owners may advise managers to release toxic waste products into a river instead of spending the organization’s resources on recycling or treating the effluent. Edward and Willmott (2013) underscore that globalization has led to the emergence of a fragile political framework that is incomplete, and local authorities enforce policies disproportionately. Consequently, business administrators must seek the guidance of moral ethics to decide whether to implement business improvements that enterprise owners are disputing to protect their earnings.
Rational reasoning should direct business administrators on actions they must implement. According to the utilitarian ethical theory, the moral value of an action depends on its outcome. Utilitarian ethics advocates maximizing the good while minimizing harm. Managers and CEOs ought to execute an action or stop it depending on the option that would have the largest number of beneficiaries. For example, treating sewage will cost the company resources, but it will save the people using the river’s water the expenses of treating diseases associated with contaminated water (Edward & Willmott, 2013). Overall, business administrators should base company politics on morality questions instead of the political subsystem.
Similarly, discourse ethics argues that managers can communicate human requirements interpersonally and justify claims through arguments. Political CSR fosters deliberative democracy, where critical evaluators can promote their universal principles. Edward and Willmott (2013) emphasize that globalization destabilizes the established business environments, with steady political regulations and frameworks. The national laws fail to work in every environment due to varying local policies. As such, corporate managers and CEOS need to engage in politics that influence the formation of laws that level the business field as opposed to strictly obeying business owners’ goals of maximizing profits.
The stakeholder theory’s argument sidesteps the fact that it is impossible to have a perfect business environment where the needs of everyone are satisfied. The premise requires corporate management to avoid violating the rights of others, such as customers and the surrounding residents, for their gain (Greenwood & Cieri, 2005). Therefore, political CSR is crucial to close gaps that can prevent an enterprise from operating smoothly. The business administrators can use their influence to lobby for laws that would enable them to maximize their profit and deliver high-quality services and products to their customers.
Overall, business theories are critical components that businesses use to combat management challenges, investment stagnation, and lobbying for a favorable political environment required to improve profit generation. Entrepreneurs can choose from a varying range of administrative theories, but political CSR suits most businesses since it encourages organizations to act as government entities instead of private units. The discourse ethics, which advocates for the use of logical judgment, provides the best ethical approach that business actors should follow when pursuing beneficial policies in an organization where owners focus more on profit generation than on the welfare of other stakeholders.
References
Edward, P. & Willmott, H. (2013). Discourse and normative business ethics. Springer Science Business Media.
Greenwood, M. & Cieri, H. (2005). Stakeholder theory and the ethics of human resource management. Working Paper, 47(05). Web.
Tempels, T., Blok, V. & Verweij, M. (2017). Understanding political responsibility in corporate citizenship: Towards a shared responsibility for the common good. Journal of Global Ethics, 13(1), 90-108. Web.