Apple’s business action indicates that it does not consider ethical relativism since it applies a common code of conduct to different suppliers irrespective of region, belief, culture, race, and gender (Healy, 2007). This supports the fact that Apple’s business ethics are in line with the principle of ethical universalism. For Apple Company to adhere to the moral universalism principle, it formed a monitoring program. This program is meant to audit suppliers’ factories and detect the weaknesses of non-compliance with the principle of moral universalism.
The company detached itself from the suppliers who failed to adhere to the principle of ethical universalism. For instance, in the year 2011, Apple carried out its auditing procedures to suppliers’ facilities. It found out that, the majority of them had violated the compliance of universalism ethics. They had employed underage employees, charged exorbitant fees during recruitment, had improper and hazardous wastes disposals, and had deliberately presented erroneous audit reports. The company ensured that immediate remedy actions put these facilities on probation and insisted on carrying out another audit practice on them in the year that followed. Apple requires suppliers to provide safe working conditions to employees and eliminate all physical risks that might be injurious to workers (Healy, 2007).
Drivers for Unscrupulous Behaviors in Madoff and Stanford Group.
In the case of Bernard Madoff and the managers of Stanford Financial Group, the driver was flawed oversight for unethical actions and that enabled the dishonest pursuit of personal achievement and self-interest (Hemingway, 2005). Both persons were possessed with ideas of accumulating and fulfilling their self-interests, which diverted ethical morals in the quest for personal achievements. Madoff deceived investors with a simple Ponzi scheme, which would beat the market by more than a hundred percents return on investments made. This scheme failed in the year 2008 when he failed to repay back the investors who withdrew their investments. In the case of Stanford Financial Group, the managers, Stanford used the same scheme to defraud and carry out money laundering activities at the expense of others. This was to fulfill his own personal benefits.
Burt’s bees Corporate Responsibilities
The company managed to implement CSR by fully involving its customers hence winning their loyalty towards the product of personal natural care. The company used the principle of the greater good, which refers to all products produced being for the well-being of all and for the environment too. Burt’s bee has considered three factors in implementing its strategic CSR which are natural safety, humanitarian accountability, and environmental maintainable (McWilliams, Siegel, & Wright, 2006).
The importance of CSR is to help the business maintain healthy relationships with all its stakeholders and gain economically. The business considers the importance of CSR in three perspectives; economic, social, and environmental benefits. Environmentally, the business produces what is environmentally friendly hence considers ecological factors. Socially, the business considers both internal and external stakeholders (McWilliams et al., 2006)
Many organizations are addressing business ethics and CSR in different perspectives contrary to prior periods. Currently, many businesses are considering sustainable business practices, which will fulfill current needs without compromising the ability to meet future needs. Unilever Company has engaged in environmental sustainability strategies to protect natural resources. Its strength is the ability to initiate programs that improve the environmental performance of its suppliers. The weakness is observed in its effort to reduce pesticides usage by ninety percent and at the same time increase yields in agricultural products. For the company to succeed in CSR and improve in business ethics it is recommended to start with staff development programs and training that would help them embrace these practices hence putting them into practice (McWilliams et al., 2006).
Healy, L. M. (2007). Universalism and cultural relativism in social work ethics. International Social Work, 50(1), 11-26.
Hemingway, C. A. (2005). Personal values as a catalyst for corporate social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 60(3), 233-249.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications*. Journal of management studies, 43(1), 1-18.