Results so far:
| Yes | 95% | 83 votes | Total: 87 votes | |
| No | 5% | 4 votes |
When you walk into a local store - not one of the big chains but, a store established by someone who lives and works in the community, it is usually a store that relies on word of mouth advertising, not TV, radio, newspaper and billboard ads. The kind of place your friend sends you. For them, ethics is a big element in their working philosophy. Relying on word-of-mouth advertising requires a business person to ensure high customer satisfaction and a great part of this is how they deal with problems in an ethical manner.
But when a company gets to a certain size where TV, radio, magazine and newspaper ads are very much in their methodology to attract new customers, do they need to worry about the occasional customer complaint? Can their size and advertising budget quash any consumer concerns? Can they lower their ethics to maximize their profit?
I know of two companies that have used unethical practices to further their business situation and the facts to prove it. What you are about to read is FACT, undisputed and on record and therefore all the worse for it actually happening.
Mattamy Homes, a large house building corporation has made a North American reputation for building quality homes. Yes, I must say most of their homes are built in a professional manner. They are even advancing forward thinking assembly line construction in large factories on-site. But, they sold a house without electrical power. They even illegally (code) wired the furnace to an unoccupied house next door and had a Town of Oakville inspector pass this, even though his director is on file stating they would not issue an occupancy permit to a house in such condition.
Why did they do this? Can it be that without the furnace working, they could not legally close the sale? Would you consider this an ethical way to do business? But then, Mattamy Homes has a large advertising budget and they donate millions to Town of Oakville projects and to other jurisdictions. They supply free bus service in the Town of Milton. Now, how does one fight city hall and Mattamy Homes when faced with this type of business practice? You don't and both know that if they keep quiet, this kind of problem drifts away. Poor ethics win.
Now, Ford Motor Company has built an advertised reputation for quality and customer care. Did you know that they built F150 trucks with a built in problem of leaking front windows? They built a certain number of these trucks without properly sealing the window. Over time (usually after warranty) these windows work loose and start to leak into the interior. These leaks hit the fuse box and other electronics, causing these features to fail. Of course, the shorted out electronics are replaced but no one fixes the window why would they especially when they don't know the failures are caused by water leakage.
Did Ford do a recall, put out a public notice or warn garages? They might have put out a dealer bulletin but other than that, nothing to my knowledge.
Their response to this is to fix the damage and then charge you. They might draw attention to your window and direct you to someone else to fix it. Now, if you frequent a local garage, they probably don't know about the problem and just replace the shorted parts.
Is this an ethical way to do business? Building in a problem into the vehicle, repairing the damaged parts but not letting people know how to permanently fix the problem until after thousands of dollars are spent.
Would you call that ethical? Now, Toyota has recognized it has a rust perforation problem on its 1995-2000 model trucks. All off warranty and no responsibility if they follow the Ford ethical model but, they go the extra customer mile by following a higher level of ethics than Ford. They will either fix the problem or buy back the truck. No rust problem found they will extend the warranty 15 years. Both advertise quality and customer care but who follows what they preach? According to Ford's ads, they do.
If a local business person followed these two examples, they would find their word-of-mouth business would lose customers over time. They would probably have to close up shop and move, unless they changed their attitude. What do the corporations do when faced with ethics? Increase their advertising to attract those lost.
And what really hurts is that the local newspapers rely on that advertising and they will probably not print these stories. Yes, local government scandals, poor police judgement and other misfortunes will be printed but do a story on an advertiser's poor ethics that is poor business and just as unethical as Ford and Mattamy Homes.
Learn more about this author, Lance Naismith.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Too often we tend to look at the conflict between good and evil in absolute terms. She is good. He is evil. That company is socially responsible. This company is corrupt. The truth is that the conflict between good and evil is played out within each individual and each corporation continuously. There are elements of both the sacred and the profane in every person and every corporation. Corporations are even more complex because they are collections of individuals with varying degrees of influence, within each of whom the battle for the soul is waged every minute of every hour of every day.
In looking at corporations, it is important to realize that corporate existence is value neutral. There are no "good" corporations. There are no "evil" corporations. Good and evil are only useful adjectives when they are used to describe behavior in terms of some common frame of reference. Corporations, or more accurately the officers, employees, directors and agents of a corporation (collectively, the "Members") may behave in a good or evil way, even conduct themselves according to a good or evil pattern of behavior, which is then ascribed to the corporation.
The idea that corporations can develop ethical standards that are unique subsets of overarching societal ethical standards is flawed. Corporations face pressure from the government to promote diversity within their workforce. Large corporations are diverse by the nature of their widespread geographical dispersion. The ethical standards established by a corporate board of directors in New York are unlikely to resonate with the branch office in El Paso, TX, with the foreign subsidiary in Vancouver, B.C., or with a supplier in the Philippines or Indonesia.
Corporate ethics is largely a misnomer applied to corporate legal obligations related to governance, disclosures to the Securities and Exchange Commission, and compliance with various workforce statutes ranging from the OSHA guidelines to the National Labor Relations Act to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Because ethics deals with what is right rather than merely with what is legal, and because what is right is large dependent on the facts of a particular situation, corporate ethics become either meaningless (i.e., easily explained away based on exigent circumstances) or legalistic (i.e., whatever is not illegal is not unethical).
Corporate ethics might have more meaning if it were used to define hiring practices to encourage selection of employees with highly developed, well-reasoned personal philosophies; however, the ability of most recruiters to identify such individuals, while at the same time finding someone with the hard skills or experience required for a given position, make it unlikely that any such practice by a corporation were given more than lip service.
In the end, corporate ethics is a warm, fuzzy concept that exists to support rationalizations against corporate regulation by elected officials. Only people have the ability to act ethically or not. And, only the society in which a person lives is capable of defining the ethical mores to which any individual will be subject. Corporations are merely vessels established to collectively hold assets and collectively incur liabilities. Ascribing an ethical standard to corporations is as meaningful and effective as ascribing an ethical standard to a hammer. The hammer has no ethics. It is wielded in a manner that is ethical or unethical, legal or illegal, by a person.
Learn more about this author, Robert Bragaw.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.