Ethical pluralism

ethical pluralism is the idea that there are many theories about what is “right”and “wrong” (moral norms) which may be incompatible and/or incommensurable with your own personal moral norms. International engagement involves working within other societies where you are likely to be faced with different norms. Deciding when it is appropriate to act under one norm or another requires careful consideration.An example of a moral norm may be: “it is wrong to physically harm a child, and those who do so should be punished.” An ethical dilemma in your international engagement may arise when your moral norms differ from those of a society regarding: Treatment of/value in women and other gender/sex issues Treatment of/value in children and the elderly The environment, waste, and consumption Business practices, loyalty, contractual agreements, and work ethic Treatment of/value in animals Privacy and community Religion, religious dogma and traditionEthical pluralism is also known as “value” or “moral” pluralism. It is related but not identical to the concepts of moral relativism (there exist many moral theories and there is no objective standard by which they may be judged) and cultural relativism (that norms, values, and practices may be understood as sensible within their respective cultural contexts).Relevance to ISL:SustainabilityEthical pluralism suggests your actions may be in opposition to local norms, or you might be expected to act in opposition to your own norms. Either one of these conflicts may make your work unsustainable.Example: You may be working on an project involving sexual education for youth. This may be unacceptable to some locals and thus long-term community investment is threatened.Cultural CompetenceUnderstanding your own cultural and ethical norms in addition to those of othersis essential to cultural competence. Those engaged in international engagement should be aware of similarities, disparities, and how to reconcile differences (Neutrality vs tolerance).Balance and ReciprocityThose involved in international work must understand and respect other ethical norms. This respect is necessary in any balanced partnership.MotivationsIt is important to consider your own vantage, pre-conceived notions, and the norms your ‘import’ to another society. It is also important to consider which moral norms are motivating you to go, and how those might be challenged by others with differing norms.

Training and EducationThere may be multiple ideas of what is “right” and “wrong” about your international engagement. e.g. You might believe it is “wrong” for young, relatively uneducated students to work overseas; another might believe it is “right” for students to gain international experience.

What Is the Relationship between Business Ethics and Corporate Governance?Business ethics and corporate governance are two significant factorsthat impact a company and how it operates. Business ethics representthe values, principles or characteristics that a company follows when conducting business in the economy. Corporate governance is theinternal framework that a company designs and implements to govern and protect those invested into the company. The relationship between ethics and governance comes from an organization’s owner or executive managers, who create the governance and decide which ethical principles employees will follow.Business ethics typically follow a normative theory. This theory states that individuals and firms will follow ethical principles that are commonly found in society, hence the term normative, or standard, ethics. Three normative ethic theories include stockholder, stakeholder, and social contract theories. The stockholder ethical theory states that a company should create a relationship between business ethics and corporate governance that focuses on stockholders. Managers will employ strategies and activities that advance or increase the investments of share holders.

Under the stakeholder theory of ethics, business ethics and corporate governance focuses on anyone who has a stake in the business. Although wide ranging, this connection between these factors is often stronger, as recent changes to corporate governanceinclude now any individual who is affected by the company. This connection ensures that everyone receives equal or fair treatment when dealing with the business. For example, customers who purchase a faulty product may receive a replacement at no charge and a few extra benefits. This promotes business ethics throughout the organization.

A third and final ethical theory is the social contract theory. Thistheory focuses on companies that improve the overall welfare of society. Shareholders may be less willing to invest money into a company that follows this ethical theory, as shareholders may lose money to causes or other benefits that are outside of the company’s normal operating context. To make investors fully aware of the company’s social contract theory of ethics, business owners, executives and board members will often include this information in the corporate governance.Another relationship between business ethics and corporate governance is a company’s mission statement. The mission statement clearly outlines a company’s planned standard of excellence for operating in the business environment. This mission statement can focus more on a social aspect of the operations rather than a profitmotive to repay shareholders. In these types of companies, shareholders will invest in the company because they believe in the company and desire to see the company succeed in its social mission.

KOHLBERG'S MORAL STAGESKolberg's theory specifies six stages of moral development, arranged in three levels. Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development constitute an adaptation of apsychological theory originally conceived by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget. Kohlberg began work on this topic while a psychology graduate student at the University of Chicago [1]  in 1958, and expanded and developed this theory throughout his life.

The theory holds that moral reasoning, the basis for ethical behavior, has six identifiable developmental stages, each more adequate at responding to moral dilemmas than its predecessor.[2] Kohlberg followed the development of moral judgment far beyond the ages studied earlier by Piaget,[3] who also claimed that logic and morality develop through constructive stages.[2] Expanding on Piaget's work, Kohlberg determined that the process of moral development was principally concerned with justice, and that it continued throughout the individual's lifetime,[4] a notion that spawned dialogue on the philosophical implications of such research.[5][6]

The six stages of moral development are grouped into three levels: pre-conventional morality, conventional morality, and post-conventional morality.

For his studies, Kohlberg relied on stories such as the Heinz dilemma, and was interested in how individuals would justify their actions if placed in similar moral dilemmas. He then analyzed the form of moral reasoning displayed, rather than its conclusion,[6] and classified it as belonging to one of six distinct stages.[7][8][9]

Level I: Preconventional/PremoralMoral values reside in external, quasi-physical events, or in bad acts. The child is responsive to rules and evaluative labels, but views them in terms of pleasant or unpleasant consequences of actions, orin terms of the physical power of those who impose the rules.

Stage 1: Obedience and punishment orientation Egocentric deference to superior power or

prestige, or a trouble-avoiding set. Objective responsibility.

Stage 2: Naively egoistic orientation Right action is that which is instrumental in

satisfying the self's needs and occasionally others'.

Relativism of values to each actor's needs and perspectives.

Naive egalitarianism,orientation to exchange andreciprocity.

Level II: Conventional/Role ConformityMoral values reside in performing the right role, in maintaining the conventional order and expectancies of others as a value in its own right.

Stage 3: Good-boy/good-girl orientation Orientation to approval, to pleasing and helping

others. Conformity to stereotypical images of majority

or natural role behavior. Action is evaluated in terms of intentions.

Stage 4: Authority and social-order-maintaining orientation

Orientation to "doing duty" and to showing respect for authority and maintaining the given social order or its own sake.

Regard for earned expectations of others. Differentiates actions out of a sense of

obligation to rules from actions for generally "nice" or natural motives.

Level III: Postconventional/Self-Accepted Moral PrinciplesMorality is defined in terms of conformity to shared standards,rights, or duties apart from supporting authority. The standards conformed to are internal, and action-decisions are based on an inner process ofthought and judgement concerning right and wrong.

Stage 5: Contractual/legalistic orientation Norms of right and wrong are defined in terms of

laws or institutionalized rules which seem to have a rational basis.

When conflict arises between individual needs and law or contract, though sympathetic to the former, the individual believes the latter must prevail because of its greater functional rationality for society, the majority will and welfare.

Stage 6: The morality of individual principles of conscience

Orientation not only toward existing social rules, but also toward the conscience as a directing agent, mutual trust and respect, and principles of moral choice involving logical universalities and consistency.

Action is controlled by internalized ideals thatexert a pressure to act accordingly regardless of the reactions of others in the immediate environment.

If one acts otherwise, self-condemnation and guilt result.

Levels of ethical decision-making[edit]Terry Cooper is an often-cited author in the field of public administration ethics. His book, The Responsible Administrator, is an in-depth attempt to bridge the philosophical points of ethics and the complex workings of public administration. While not revolutionary, his work has become a focal point around which ethical decision-making in the public sector are made. In The Responsible Administrator, he states that public administrators make decisions daily according to a distinctive four-level process. The four levels are:

The Expressive Level: At this stage, a person responds to a situation with "spontaneous, unreflective expressions of emotion ...which neither invite a reply nor attempt to persuade others" (1990, p. 7)[4]

The Level of Moral Rules: This is the first level at which we begin to question actions and begin to look for alternatives and consequences. The responses at this level are often built upon "moral rules we acquire through the socialization process from our families, religious affiliations, education and personal experiences." Decisions on how to handle the situation are then whittled down based on what we feel is the most appropriate action within our own personal moral bank (1990, pp. 7–10).[4]

The Level of Ethical Analysis: There are times when a personal moralcode will seem inadequate for the situation, or that the alternatives and consequences do not feel right. When this occurs, aperson has entered this level and begins to examine their ethical principles, or "statements concerning the conduct or state of being that is required for the fulfillment of a value; it explicitly linksa value with a general mode of action" (1990, p. 10).[4] Particularly,at this level, one begins to reexamine their personal values, and may eventually disagree with actions to such an extent that they will become "whistleblowers."

The Postethical Level: At this level, questions arise about one's view of the world and human nature, how we know anything to be true,and the meaning of life. Here there is a philosophical examination as to why ethical standards are important and relevant to the individual.[4]

These levels are progressive and as an individual begins to move from level to the next, he/she will begin to question increasingly more fundamental assumptions upon which the decision-making process is built. It is important to understand the level of thinking upon which a decision is made to ensure that a decision has been tested for strength and a public sense of validity.

Cooper's decision-making model[edit]Cooper devised a method of moving from an ethical problem to appropriate alternatives and consequences. This model follows a sequential, rational approach to ethical decision-making. This method utilizes description and prescription, where public administrators begin to describe to themselves and others an objective state of affairs, and then begin to suggest steps to change the situation (1990, p. 17).[4]

The steps to this process are as follows:

1. The Descriptive Task: A problem is often presented in a fragmented, distorted fashion coupled with judgmental languageand inflections (1990, p. 17).[4]Cooper contends that the administrator is in a position to have more complete knowledgewhen an issue is brought forward. Additionally, an

administrator should attempt to describe questionable situations void of personal feelings (moving beyond the expressive level).

2. Defining the Ethical Issue: Often the most misinterpreted step, with defining the ethical issue, an administrator is notcharged with defining the problem. Instead, there is an examination of what is the underlying ethical value that is being addressed. Often, there is a decision made because of a problem, without examination of the ethical issue. This is damaging to the process of decision-making because it harms one's ethical analysis skills and ethical identity. This is true because situations can differ, and practical decision-making may lead to inconsistencies without an ethical base (1990, p. 20).[4]

3. Identifying Alternative Courses of Action: Using a rationalistic approach, an administrator, with as complete knowledge of the situation as possible and an assessment of the ethical issue at hand, identifies all the plausible courses of action in response to the situation (1990, p. 21).[4]

4. Projecting the Possible Consequences: In this stage, all positive and negative results of each alternative are examined. When discovering the possible positive and negative outcomes of an action, administrators use their moral imagination, or the imagined enactment of how alternatives will play out. Ideally, as more consequences are enumerated, the ethical decision-making process will be strengthened (1990, p. 22).[4]

5. Finding a Fit: The appropriate solution or alternative is a balance of four elements (1990, pp. 22–25):[4]

1.Moral Rules: Those basic standards that can be attributed to the alternatives and their consequences.

2.Rehearsal of Defenses: The assessment and alignment of alternatives with the accepted norms of the wider professional organization and political communities of which we are a part.

3.Ethical Principles: In assessing the moral rules, it may become clear that certain moral values are competitive. Therefore, it becomes difficult to say that an

alternative which support social justice is more correctthan the security of an individual or the organization. Here, an administrator assesses alternatives and their moral values under the light of the level of ethical analysis - deciding how the hierarchy of moral rules is structured and ultimately influencing the final decision.

4.Anticipatory Self-Appraisal: Simply put, this analysis of alternatives requires an internal reflection of whether an administrator feels that an alternative fits within what he or she perceives to be their own personality. This is an examination of whether an alternative will meet our need to feel satisfied with the decision.

By following Cooper's model of ethical decision-making, a public administrator is able to create a more concrete process by which to assess individual steps that were taken in reaching a decision. Thisensures that at each point, an effort was made by the administrator to uphold ethical principles and that fairness and equality were thestandard. An administrator's decision must be able to withstand scrutiny to ensure that there is a continued trust and respect for accountability among employees and the public in the administrator's ability to conduct his/her duties.

Ethics is the branch of philosophy that examines questions of morality, or rightand wrong. While applied ethics addresses questions such as “If X happens, what is the ethical thing to do?” meta-ethics takes a step back and looks at even more fundamental questions like “Do moral terms such as 'good' and 'evil' have meaning?” and “What are the basic factors we should use to make moral judgments?”

Philosophers attempting to answer the second question are divided into two basiccamps: moral universalism and moral relativism. Moral universalists believe thatcertain actions are “good” or “evil” regardless of an individual's beliefs. Moral relativists, on the other hand, believe that morality can only be decided by one's cultural or personal beliefs.

Moral Universalism

Also called moral objectivism, this philosophy argues for the existence of a universal ethic. Certain behaviors are simply wrong regardless of the circumstances. In a 2007 interview Noam Chomsky defined universalism as “If

something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me.”

Universalism is based on the idea of a “rational test” that can be applied to any ethical dilemma. The exact nature of this test varies widely among differentfactions of universalists. For example, utilitarianism states that the correct rational test is “Does my action create the maximum good for the maximum number of people?” If the answer is yes, then a utilitarianist would say that the action is morally correct.

Moral universalism in the form of human rights has become widely accepted in thepast several decades. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, issued by the United Nations in 1948, and the Geneva Conventions (which define fair treatment of prisoners of war) are based on the theory of moral universalism. In other words, human beings all have certain rights and to deny those rights is always immoral.

Moral Relativism

Different cultures and individuals have different standards of right and wrong. Moral standards also change over time in the same culture. For example, slavery was considered moral in the United States at one time &ndash but not anymore.

Moral relativists argue that there is no known universal rule that defines rightand wrong. Instead, morality is determined by the standards of a person's own authorities. These authorities might be a government, a religion or even a family member.

To carry the argument further, if one society believes that slavery is wrong andanother believes that slavery is right, a moral relativist would say that eitherside may be correct. We have no way of knowing for sure whether slavery is ethically right or wrong, since human beings have not yet found an absolute moral yardstick with which we can judge.

Vision is a widely used term, but not well understood. Perhaps leaders don't understand what vision is, or why it is important. One strategic leader is quoted as saying, "I've come to believe that we need a vision to guide us, but I can't seem to get my hands on what 'vision' is. I've heard lots of terms like mission, purpose, values, and strategicintent, but no-one has given me a satisfactory way oflooking at vision that will help me sort out this morass of words. It's really frustrating!" (Collins

and Porras 1991). To understand vision, clarify what the term means.

DEFINING VISION

One definition of vision comes from Burt Nanus, a well-known expert on the subject. Nanus defines a vision as a realistic, credible, attractive future for [an] organization. Let's disect this definition:

Realistic: A vision must be based in reality to be meaningful for an organization. For example, if you're developing a vision for a computer software company that has carved out a small niche in the market developing instructional software and has a 1.5 percent share of the computer software market, a vision to overtake Microsoft and dominate the software market is not realistic!

Credible: A vision must be believable to be relevant. To whom must a vision be credible? Most importantly, to the employees or members ofthe organization. If the members of the organization do not find the vision credible, itwill not be meaningful or serve a useful purpose. One of the purposes of a vision is to inspire those in the organization to achieve a level of excellence, and to provide purpose and direction for the work of those employees. A vision which is not credible will accomplish neither of these ends.

Attractive: If a vision is going to inspire and motivate those in the organization, it must be attractive. People must want to be part of this future that's envisioned for the organization.

Future: A vision is not in the present, it is inthe future. In this respect, the image of the leader gazing off into the distance to formulatea vision may not be a bad one. A vision is not where you are now, it's where you want to be in the future. (If you reach or attain a vision, and it's no longer in the future, but in the present, is it still a vision?)

Nanus goes on to say that the right vision for an organization, one that is a realistic, credible, attractive futurefor that organization, can accomplish a number of things for the organization:

It attracts commitment and energizes people. Thisis one of the primary reasons for having a vision for an organization: its motivational effect. When people can see that the organization is committed to a vision-and that entails more than just having a vision statement-it generates enthusiasm about the course the organization intends to follow, and increases the commitment of people to work toward achieving that vision.

It creates meaning in workers' lives. A vision allows people to feel like they are part of a greater whole, and hence provides meaning for their work. The right vision will mean somethingto everyone in the organization if they can see how what they do contributes to that vision. Consider the difference between the hotel service worker who can only say, "I make beds and clean bathrooms," to the one who can also say, "I'm part of a team committed to becoming the worldwide leader in providing quality

service to our hotel guests." The work is the same, but the context and meaning of the work isdifferent.

It establishes a standard of excellence. A visionserves a very important function in establishinga standard of excellence. In fact, a good visionis all about excellence. Tom Peters, the author of In Search of Excellence, talks about going into an organization where a number of problems existed.When he attempted to get the organization's leadership to address the problems, he got the defensive response, "But we're no worse than anyone else!" Peters cites this sarcastically asa great vision for an organization: "Acme Widgets: We're No Worse Than Anyone Else!" A vision so characterized by lack of a striving for excellence would not motivate or excite anyone about that organization. The standard of excellence also can serve as a continuing goal and stimulate quality improvement programs, as well as providing a measure of the worth of the organization.

It bridges the present and the future. The rightvision takes the organization out of the present, and focuses it on the future. It's easyto get caught up in the crises of the day, and to lose sight of where you were heading. A good vision can orient you on the future, and providepositive direction. The vision alone isn't enough to move you from the present to the future, however. That's where a strategic plan, discussed later in the chapter, comes in. A vision is the desired future state for the organization; the strategic plan is how to get

from where you are now to where you want to be in the future.

Another definition of vision comes from Oren Harari: "Vision should describe a set of ideals and priorities, a picture of the future, a sense of what makes the company special and unique, a core set of principles that the company stands for, and a broad set of compelling criteria that will help define organizational success." Are there any differences between Nanus's and Harari's definitions of vision? What are the similarities? Do these definitions help clarify the concept of vision and bring it into focus?

An additional framework for examining vision is put forward by Collins and Porras. They conceptualize vision as having two major components: a Guiding Philosophy, and aTangible Image. They define the guiding philosophy as "a system of fundamental motivating assumptions, principles, values and tenets." The guiding philosophy stems from the organization's core beliefs and values and its purpose.

CORE BELIEFS AND VALUES

Just as they underlie organizational culture, beliefsand values are a critical part of guiding philosophy and therefore vision. One CEO expressed the importance of core values and beliefs this way:

I firmly believe that any organization, in order to survive and achieve success, must have a sound set of beliefs on whichit premises all its policies and actions. Next, I believe that the most important single factor in corporate success is faithful adherence to those beliefs. And,finally, I believe [the organization] must be willing to change

everything about itself except those beliefs as it moves through corporate life. (Collins and Porras 1991)

Core values and beliefs can relate to different constituents such as customers, employees, and shareholders, to the organization's goals, to ethicalconduct, or to the organization's management and leadership philosophy. Baxter Healthcare Corporation has articulated three Shared Values: Respect for their Employees, Responsiveness to their Customers, and Results for their Shareholders, skillfully linking their core values to their key constituencies and also saying something about what is important to the organization. The key,however, is whether these are not only stated but also operating value

Meaning and elements of company philosophy

As the term is most commonly used, it seems to stand for the basic beliefs that people in the business are expected to hold and be guided by—informal,unwritten guidelines on how people should perform and conduct themselves. Once such a philosophy crystallizes, it becomes a powerful force indeed. When one person tells another "That’s not the way we do things around here," the advice had better be heeded.

The literature on company philosophy is neither very extensive nor very satisfactory. But one dictionary definition of philosophy does apply: "general laws that furnish the rational explanation of anything." In this sense, a company philosophy evolves as a set of laws or guidelines that gradually become established, through trial and error or through leadership, as expected patterns of behavior.

Some typical examples of basic beliefs that serve as guidelines to action will clarify the concept. Although such basic beliefs inevitably vary from company to company, here are five that I find recurring frequently in the most successful corporations:

1. Maintenance of high ethical standards in external and internal relationships is essential to maximum success.

2. Decisions should be based on facts, objectively considered—what I call the fact-founded, thought-through approach to decision making.

3. The business should be kept in adjustment with the forces at work in its environment.

4. People should be judged on the basis of their performance, not on personality, education, or personal traits and skills.

5. The business should be administered with a sense of competitive urgency.High ethical standardsThe business with high ethical standards has three primary advantages over competitors whose standards are lower:

A business of high principle generates greater drive and effectiveness because people know that they can do the right thing decisivelyand with confidence. When there is any doubt about what action to take, they can rely on the guidance of ethical principles. Inner administrative drive emanates largely from the fact that everyone feels confident that he can safely do the right thing immediately. And they also know that any action that is even slightly unprincipled will be generally condemned.

A business of high principle attracts high-caliber people more easily, thereby gaining a basic competitive and profit edge. A high-caliberperson favors the business of principle and avoids the employer whose practices are questionable. For this reason, companies that do not adhere to high ethical standards must actually maintain a higher level of compensation to attract and hold people of ability.

A business of high principle develops better and more profitable relations with customers, competitors, and the general public because it can be counted on to do the right thing at all times. By the consistently ethical character of its actions, it builds a favorable image. In choosing among suppliers, customers resolve their doubts in favor of such a company.Competitors are less likely to comment unfavorably on it. And the general public is more likely to be open-minded toward its actions.

Too often, these values tend to be taken for granted. My point in mentioning them is to urge executives to actively seek ways of making high principle a more explicit element in their company philosophy. No one likesto declaim about his honesty and trustworthiness, but the leaders of a company can profitably articulate, within the organization, their determination that everyone shall adhere to high standards of ethics. That is the best foundation for a profit-making company philosophy and a profitable system of management.

Enterprise Strategy DefinedStrategy is a set of decisions and actions aimed at gaining a sustainable competitive advantage.

Role of Enterprise Strategy

Successful companies are those that focus their efforts strategically. Strategy should be a stretch exercise,not a fit exercise. To meet and exceed customersatisfaction, your business team needs to follow anoverall organizational strategy. A successfulstrategy adds value for the targeted customers  over the long run by consistently meeting their needs better than the competition does.Strategy is the way in which a company orients itself towards the market  in which it operates and towards the other companies in the marketplace against which it competes. It is a plan an organization formulates to gain a sustainable advantage over the competition. The central strategic issue: why different companies, facing the same environment, perform differently.Corporate strategy seeks to develop synergies by sharing and coordinating staff and other resources across business units, investing financial resources across business units, and using business units to complement othercorporate business activities.Strategy answers the following questions:

what are the sources of the company's sustainable competitive advantage? how a company will position itself against competition in the market

over the long run to secure a sustainable competitive advantage? what are the key strategic priorities?

Enterprise strategy is an agreed-on guide to action that should lead businessto success in the marketplace by satisfying customer needs better than the competition does. Strategy formulation is the major task for the company entrepreneur and CEO, but it is the task of middle managers and project managers to carry this strategy out and turn it into results.

Stakeholder theoryFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Examples of a company's internal and external stakeholders.

Protesting students invoking stakeholder theory at Shimer College in 2010

The stakeholder theory is a theory of organizational management and business ethics that addresses morals and values in managing an organization. It was originally detailed by R. Edward Freeman in the book Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach identifies and models the groups which are stakeholders of a corporation, and both describes and recommends methods by which management can give due regard to the interests of those groups. In short, it attempts to address the "principle of who or what really counts".[1]

In the traditional view of a company, the shareholder view, only theowners or shareholders (= stockholders) of the company are important, and the company has a binding fiduciary duty to put theirneeds first, to increase value for them. Stakeholder theory instead argues that there are other parties involved, including employees, customers, suppliers, financiers,communities, governmental bodies, political groups, trade associations, and trade unions. Even competitors are sometimes counted as stakeholders – their status being derived from their capacity to affect the firm and its stakeholders. The nature of what is a stakeholder is highly contested (Miles, 2012),[2] with hundreds of definitions existing in the academic literature (Miles, 2011).[3]

The stakeholder view of strategy integrates both a resource-based view and a market-based view, and adds a socio-political level. One common version of stakeholder theory seeks to define the specific stakeholders of a company (the normative theory of stakeholder identification) and then examine the conditions under which managers treat these parties as stakeholders (the descriptive theoryof stakeholder salience).[4]

Critics[edit]

The political philosopher Charles Blattberg has criticized stakeholder theory for assuming that the interests of the various stakeholders can be, at best, compromised or balanced against each

other. Blattberg argues that this is a product of its emphasis on negotiation as the chief mode of dialogue for dealing with conflictsbetween stakeholder interests. He recommends conversation instead and this leads him to defend what he calls a 'patriotic' conception of the corporation as an alternative to that associated with stakeholder theory.[15] Stakeholder theory is defined by Rossouw et al. in Ethics for Accountants and Auditors and by Mintz et al. in Ethical Obligations and Decision Making in Accounting.

According to Mansell (2013), by applying the political concept of a 'social contract' to the corporation, stakeholder theory undermines the principles on which a market economy is based.[16

Development[edit]

Numerous articles and books written on stakeholder theory generally credit R. Edward Freeman as the "father of stakeholder theory."[5] Freeman's Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach is widely cited in the field as being the foundation of stakeholder theory, although Freeman himself credits several bodies of literature in thedevelopment of his approach, including strategic management, corporate planning, systems theory, organization theory,and corporate social responsibility. A related field of research examines the concept of stakeholders and stakeholder salience, or the importance of various stakeholder groups to a specific firm.

More recent scholarly works on the topic of stakeholder theory that exemplify research and theorizing in this area include Donaldson andPreston (1995),[6] Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997),[7] Friedman and Miles (2002),[8] and Phillips (2003).[9]

Donaldson and Preston argue that the theory has multiple distinct aspects that are mutually supportive: descriptive, instrumental, andnormative.[10] The descriptive approach is used in research to describe and explain the characteristics and behaviors of firms, including how companies are managed, how the board of directors considers corporate constituencies, the way that managers think about managing, and the nature of the firm itself.[11] The instrumental approach uses empirical data to identify the connections that exist between the management of stakeholder groups and the achievement of corporate goals (most commonly profitability

and efficiency goals).[12] The normative approach, identified as the core of the theory by Donaldson and Preston, examines the function of the corporation and identifies the "moral or philosophical guidelines for the operation and management of the corporation."[12] Since the publication of this article in 1995, it has served as a foundational reference for researchers in the field,having been cited over 1,100 times.[citation needed]

Mitchell, et al. derive a typology of stakeholders based on the attributes of power (the extent a party has means to impose its willin a relationship), legitimacy (socially accepted and expected structures or behaviors), and urgency (time sensitivity or criticality of the stakeholder's claims).[13] By examining the combination of these attributes in a binary manner, 8 types of stakeholders are derived along with their implications for the organization. Friedman and Miles explore the implications of contentious relationships between stakeholders and organizations by introducing compatible/incompatible interests and necessary/contingent connections as additional attributes with whichto examine the configuration of these relationships.[14] Robert Allen Phillips distinguishes between normatively legitimate stakeholders (those to whom an organization holds a moral obligation) and derivatively legitimate stakeholders (those whose stakeholder statusis derived from their ability to affect the organization or its normatively legitimate stakeholders).

Essential Steps for Ethical Problem-Solving1. DETERMINE whether there is an ethical issue or/and dilemma. Is there a conflict of values, or rights, or professional responsibilities? (For example, there may be anissue of self-determination of an adolescent versus the well-being of the family.)

2. IDENTIFY the key values and principles involved. What meanings and limitations are typically attached to these competing values? (For example, rarely is confidential information held in absolute secrecy; however, typically

decisions about access by third parties to sensitive contentshould be contracted with clients.)

3. RANK the values or ethical principles which - in your professional judgement - are most relevant to the issue or dilemma. What reasons can you provide for prioritizing one competing value/principle over another? (For example, your client's right to choose a beneficial course of action couldbring hardship or harm to others who would be affected.)

4. DEVELOP an action plan that is consistent with the ethical priorities that have been determined as central to the dilemma. Have you conferred with clients and colleagues,as appropriate, about the potential risks and consequences of alternative courses of action? Can you support or justifyyour action plan with the values/principles on which the plan is based? (For example, have you conferred with all thenecessary persons regarding the ethical dimensions of planning for a battered wife's quest to secure secret shelter and the implications for her teen-aged children?)

5. IMPLEMENT your plan, utilizing the most appropriate practice skills and competencies. How will you make use of core social work skills such as sensitive communication, skillful negotiation, and cultural competence? (For example,skillful colleague or supervisory communication and negotiation may enable an impaired colleague to see her/his impact on clients and to take appropriate action.)

6. REFLECT on the outcome of this ethical decision making process. How would you evaluate the consequences of this process for those involved: Client(s), professional(s), and agency (ies)? (Increasingly, professionals have begun to seek support, further professional training, and consultation through the development of Ethics review Committees or Ethics Consultation processes.)

So you’ve got an ethical dilemma on your hands. How do you figure out what to do? Generally speaking, there are two major approaches that philosophers use in handling ethical dilemmas. One approach focuses on

the practical consequences   of what we do; the other concentrates on the actions themselves. The first school of thought basically argues "noharm, no foul"; the second claims that some actions are simply wrong. Thinkers have debated the relative merits of these approaches for centuries, but for the purpose of getting help with handling ethical dilemmas, think of them as complementary strategies for analyzing and resolving problems. Here's a brief, three-step strategy that shows you how to combine them.

(By the way, we’re going to assume that if there are any laws involved, you plan to obey them. This isn’t to say that it’s always morally wrong to break laws. But in ethical dilemmas that arise in business, the laws generally establish at least a bare minimum for how you should act. Besides, if a business regularly breaks laws, it becomes an anti-social force in society. And no matter how much money’s involved, at that point, there’s not a huge difference between a business and organized crime.)

STEP 1: ANALYZE THE CONSEQUENCES

O.K., so you're going to stay on this side of the law.  What next? It's probably easier to start by looking at the consequences of the actions you're considering.

Assume you have a variety of options.  Consider the range of both positive and negative consequences connected with each one.

Who will be helped by what you do?

Who will be hurt? What kind of benefits and harms are we talking about? After all,

some "goods" in life (like health) are more valuable than others (like a new VCR). A small amount of "high quality" good can outweigh a larger amount of "lower quality" good. By the same token, a small amount of "high quality" harm (the pain you produceif you betray someone’s trust on a very important matter) can outweigh a larger amount of "lower quality" pain (the disappointment connected with waiting another few months for a promotion).

How does all of this look over the long run as well as the short run. And if you’re tempted to give short shrift to the long run, just remember that you’re living with a lot of long-term negative consequences (like air and water pollution and the cost of the S&Lbailout) that people before you thought weren’t important enough to worry about.

After looking at all of your options, which one produces the best mix ofbenefits over harms?

STEP 2: ANALYZE THE ACTIONS

Now consider all of your options from a completely different perspective. Don’t think about the consequences. Concentrate instead strictly on the actions. How do they measure up against moral principleslike honesty, fairness, equality, respecting the dignity of others, respecting people's rights, and recognizing the vulnerability of individuals weaker or less fortunate than others? Do any of the actions that you're considering "cross the line," in terms of anything from simple decency to an important ethical principle? If there's a conflict between principles or between the rights of different people involved, is there a way to see one principle as more important than the others?

What you're looking for is the option whose actions are least problematic. 

STEP 3: MAKE A DECISIONAnd now, take both parts of your analysis into account and make a decision.

This strategy should give you at least some basic steps you can follow.

1.Why is selecting a systems development approach an important business decision? Who should participate in the selection process?

Selecting a system development approach is an important business decision because it can have a big impact on the the time, cost, and endproduct of the systems development. Depends on the willingness and capability of the organizational change that can be involved in system development different level of risk and return should be taken into consideration. Businesses today required to build applications rapidly to stay competitive. This involves a lot of different departments in requirements gathering and most of cases produces the need of business processes change during identification of pain points and deciding whichway to go to resolve problems. Managers should be aware of the differentways of approaches, evaluate and choose the right one depending on the type of organization, it's own resources and desired controls over the process. All stakeholders should participate in the selection process.During the Business Process Reengineering the first step of identifying which business processes need improvement and have a highest priority requires a strategic analysis and pain points determination by Senior Management. Identifying and describing existing processes, understandingthe process costs and process duration bring to the next step of

decision how to improve these processes and can involve different layersof organization and even multiple companies if they are part of the shared processes.

2.Some have said that the best way to reduce system development costs isto use application software packages. Do you agree? Why or why not?

If the organization doesn't have internal resources and have pretty standard business processes that can easily be set up in the applicationsoftware package, it is a good way to go in case of right choice of the best vendor solution. Some vendors are specialize in industry preset solutions for their systems. If organization has an unique requirements,then customizing the packages can be very costly and create a hassle forthe future software upgrade and maintenance.