The world of today’s business is a rather complicated phenomenon to study. There are numerous concerns and controversial points that make scholars argue about the principles according to which business should be carried out. Business ethics is one of the controversial points, as different scholars view this concept not in the same way. However, there is a certain degree of uniformity among scholars like Freeman (1996) and Sass (1986) as for the basics of the business ethics (Collins-Chobanian, 2004). This paper will focus on analyzing their arguments on business ethics in the context of employee safety, company efficiency and productivity increases.
To begin with, Freeman (1996) can be viewed as a revolutionary in business ethics as his Stakeholder Theory of a Firm modifies the traditional opinions on this topic. As contrasted to the widely accepted superiority of stockholders in the company, i. e. people having stocks in the company’s shares and bonds, Freeman (1996) introduces stakeholders as the superior forces in the company, defining them in two ways: “…”narrow defÂinition” includes those groups who are vital to the survival and success of the corporaÂtion. The “wide-definition” includes any group or individual who can affect or is afÂfected by the corporation.” (Freeman, 1996, p. 261) Moreover, considering the authentic stakeholder participation, Freeman (1996) argues for its vital importance for the employees’ safety and the company’s efficiency increase. Defending equally the interests of the employees, managers, consumers, and suppliers, the authentic representatives in all the spheres of the company’s activity can provide for the company’s success (Collins-Chobanian, 2004). Drawing from this, Freeman (1996) argues that “it would be rational to hire managers who are fiduciaries to their inÂterest and the interest of the collective.” (Freeman, 1996, p. 266)
However, Sass (1986) examines another dimension of the issue. If Freeman (1996) argues about the comprehensive approach involving all the stakeholders’ interests, Sass (1986) focuses on the employees’ needs exclusively. How risks of accidents can be reduced and the employee safety can be improved are the major concerns of his work: “The extension of the present-day legal concept of “risk” to ensure worker involvement and increased control of their working conditions can also be argued as a moral right derived from a “fundamental need” (health and safety) in the same way arguments were made on behalf of universal medical care.” (Sass, 1986, p. 129) Among the ways to achieve this, Sass (1986) sees the increase of the management attention to the needs of employees and to their job satisfaction. Also, the author stresses the importance of technological modification of the production facilities, and the free access of employees to the information about all the dangers the materials they work with might bring (Collins-Chobanian, 2004).
Thus, according to Freeman (1996) and Sass (1986), workplace accidents would be reduced in frequency, and the company’s efficiency and productivity would grow if the authentic stakeholder participation will be properly implemented in business and industrial companies (Collins-Chobanian, 2004). I agree with this point, but there is an obvious need to ensure the proper implementation of the authentic stakeholder participation which is a challenging task. As far as the human factor is involved, one can never be sure about the strict compliance to the instructions, and in this situation the risks of accidents might grow instead of being eliminated.
Works Cited
Collins-Chobanian, Shari. Ethical Challenges to Business as Usual. Prentice Hall, 2004.
Freeman, Edward. “Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation.” (pp. 258 – 267) 1996. Somemrs Education. Web.
Sass, Robert. “The Workers’ Right to Know, Participate and Refuse Hazardous Work: A Manifesto Right.” Journal of Business Ethics 5 (1986): 129 – 136.