U08999
BUSINESS ETHICS
Business Pathways, Level 3
10 credit points
2010/11, Semester 1
Unit coordinator:
Richard Christy (RB4.07)
TEACHING TEAM
Richard Christy
Gill Christy
Jan Davies
Vijay Pereira
Sara Spear
1
Aims
The aims of this unit are to introduce the means to identify, analyse and respond to ethical
issues in business.
Learning Outcomes
On successful completion of the unit, students should be able (at the threshold level) to:
•
•
•
Identify ethical issues in business
Present a general analysis of ethical issues in business from more than one point of view
Suggest appropriate responses to ethical issues
Teaching
Having tried it out for the last two years, we are again offering two hours of lectures per week
instead of the standard one hour for a ten-credit unit. We made this change for a number of
reasons:
• The theoretical subject matter is very new for most people on the unit;
• Students have told us for some years that they particularly like the lectures;
• Last year, we kept over-running a one-hour slot, so rather than learning how to lecture
in a more disciplined way, we thought we would add an extra hour…
There will also be weekly seminars to support the lectures. The lectures will introduce the
topics for the week and the seminars have been designed to allow you to build up some
fluency in thinking in terms of ethical frameworks and applying them to practical situations.
LECTURE SCHEDULE
The lecture for this unit is a two-hour session timetabled for 1100 1300 on Thursdays. In the
following schedule, we have split this session into a first part and a second part. The first part
will always take the form of a more-or-less standard lecture, although in some weeks, it may
run for more than half of the two-hour session. We will build in a short break after the first
part; the second part will usually be less structured and we may change the content of this
part at short notice if something compelling comes up in the news. In 2008, for example, it
was the near-collapse of the global financial system.
2
Week Weekly lecture
Seminar (see later for
details)
First part
Introduction (RC, GC, VP)
Second part
1. Finding out about business ethics –
sources and bookmarks
2. Distributive justice and assessment –
hypothetical discussion
4/10
Knowing your left from your right – business ethics,
politics and government (RC, GC, VP)
The UK’s coalition government and business discussion
Case study: BP and the
Gulf of Mexico –
emerging lessons
11/10
Ethical theories I (GC)
(principles and virtues)
How they do ethics lectures at Harvard – Prof.
Michael Sandel at work
Good and bad in business
– your experience so far
18/10
Ethical theories II (RC)
(consequences and self-interest)
How to debate
(watch your lecturers in a debate and learn)
Understanding good and
bad (1)
25/10
Ethics and CSR (RC)
Gimme Shelter – business and the major
challenges facing humankind
Understanding good and
bad (2)
1/11
Best behaviour – corporate governance; fostering
ethical conduct (GC)
Whose job is ‘ethics’?
Case study: Riverford,
organics and ethics
8/11
Ethics and HRM (GC)
Equal opportunities: what’s not to like?
(discussion)
Case study: Fat Cats
27/9
3
Introduction
15/11
Ethics and the employment contract
(guest lecture by Steve Williams)
Ethics and marketing (RC)
Employment ethics in times of economic
difficulty
The role of the consumer as an ethical actor –
how ethically do we behave?
29/11
International business, globalisation and world poverty
(VP)
The Bottom Billion – review of the Collier (2008 Debate 3
et seq) framework
6/12
Business ethics in practice (RC)
(ethical issues in the food industry)
13/12
Revision (RC, GC, VP)
22/11
Consolidation week
Debate 1
Debate 2
Debate 4
1. Business Ethics and Charles Dickens
2. Quiz (tba)
Consolidation week
4
Revision
SEMINAR PROGRAMME (weekly seminars)
W/c
Topic
27/9
Introduction; discussion of scheme of work; allocation of responsibilities
4/10
Case study A: BP and the Gulf of Mexico 2010
Read the articles and think about the following:
• What ethical issues are evident here? To be more specific, exactly
what bad things have been done by whom to whom?
• What are the implications of the outcome of this case so far?
11/10
Examples of good and bad in business
For this discussion, please prepare in advance two examples of good,
admirable behaviour by businesses and two examples of bad, undesirable
behaviour. What – if any – effect have these events had on what you think
about these businesses and how you behave towards them? Be prepared to
explain and justify your choices: the aim of this discussion is to illustrate the
scope of ethical questions in business.
18/10
Discussion: understanding good and bad (1)
Last week’s lecture was about ethics as principles (or duties) and ethics as
virtues. This seminar will invite you to identify principles and virtues that
relate to the conduct of business. Think about this and make notes to bring to
the seminar
25/10
Discussion: understanding good and bad (2)
This week, the seminar discussion will help you to deepen your
understanding of the link between ethics and consequences, as well as the
extent to which self-interest and ethics are compatible.
5
1/11
Case study B: Riverford
Read the articles/links on the Victory site for this week and think about the
following questions:
•
•
•
8/11
Case study C: ‘Cool for Cats?’ – top management reward packages (see
BBC etc extracts in the separate document)
•
•
•
•
15/11
A cynic (or an economist) might say that the Riverford operation is
mainly designed to attract the custom of buyers who are not pricesensitive (and so can be charged more, provided you don’t make them
look stupid). What is the evidence for and against this contention?
Is organic food production more ethical than standard food
production? Why? What follows from your answer?
Some of Riverford’s concerns seem to be about sustainability as much
as organic production. What’s the distinction between the two ideas?
Are they always mutually supportive?
What exactly are people objecting to when they complain about ‘Fat
Cat’ pay levels? What principle is being breached?
In what ways would libertarian and utilitarian analyses of these
issues differ and why?
Is it ethical to characterise cats in this way? Shouldn’t animals be
protected from routine disparagement by journalists in pursuit of a
convenient metaphor?
Is the previous question for real?
Debate 1: “Marketing aims to make people want things that they do not need
and so contributes to the growth of selfishness, greed and irresponsibility in
society”
Hint: this is a frequent charge levelled against business in general and
marketing in particular. Traditionally, the person making the accusation is
referring to the effects of marketing on other people, who plainly need to be
protected from the effects of their own choices. There are two main things to
debate here – is the first part true (and what definitions of ‘want’ and ‘need’
are implied); and is there a necessary link between this and the alleged
consequences in the second part?
6
22/11
Debate 2: “The most reliable and effective protection for most workers is provided
by the existence of many employers” (Friedman and Friedman 1980)
Hint: Mr and Mrs Friedman are suggesting that firms competing with each other for
the labour that they need is the best way of securing good pay and conditions for
workers – no need for that expensive, ever-increasing and ineffective regulatory
superstructure that we all pay for….
29/11
Debate 3: “The use of bribery to win contracts in markets where corruption is
commonplace is a legitimate and unavoidable tactic for firms that choose to take part
in these markets”
Hint: there’s more than a slight whiff of relativism in this assertion. The word
‘legitimate’ is worth a closer look, possibly from a utilitarian point of view. Those
leading or listening to this debate would do well to pay a prior visit to the website of
the organisation Transparency International (www.transparency.org.uk), whose
work helps to cut through the obfuscation and self-serving nonsense that plagues
discussion of this subject
6/12
Debate 4: “Multinational corporations do far more good than harm in developing
countries, as evidenced by the eagerness with which poorer country governments
seek to attract foreign direct investment.”
Hint: this is a very live issue (check the news websites) and one that provides an
opportunity to contrast the deontological and utilitarian views of ethics.
13/12
Review/revision
7
SEMINAR REQUIREMENTS
The seminar programme consists of a mixture of case studies and formal debates.
The case studies are accounts of some real-life events and organisations, based on
extracts from Internet sources (see Victory site). If the seminar activity is based on a
case study, then the discussion will be led by the seminar leader. It is your
responsibility to read the material for the case study before the seminar and to make
notes in response to the questions in the schedule above, in order that you can take
part in the discussion. And not freeload on the work of others, to make the obvious
ethical point…
About half of the seminars will take the form of debates. Debates will be led by
teams within each seminar group: experience so far suggests that it would do no harm
to provide a reminder of how a formal debate should be conducted, as follows:
WHAT IS A DEBATE?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A debate is a formal contest between two sides to persuade an audience of one
point of view or its opposite – usually for or against a statement (known as a
‘motion’ in debates)
We need two sides: the proposers, who support the statement and the
opposers, who try to have the statement rejected. To be on a particular side,
you don’t have to agree with the points you are making, but you do have to
present them as persuasively as you can.
The first member of the proposers speaks first and presents their arguments
and evidence in support of the statement
The first opposer then has a chance to present their arguments and evidence
against the statement
The second proposer then speaks, and seeks to respond to the arguments of the
opposers (for example, by pointing to any flaws in the argument or showing
that the true picture is different in some way)
Finally, the second opposer has a chance to respond to the arguments of the
proposers.
The discussion then turns to the audience (known as ‘the floor’), who have a
chance to ask questions of either or both teams. Your seminar leader will also
take part in this process.
At the end of the seminar, a vote will be taken as to which side has been the
most persuasive
We will carry out a staged debate for you in the lecture in Week 4, to show you what
we mean.
Those not leading the debate in a particular week will be responsible for asking
searching questions from the floor, in order to probe the robustness of the arguments
being advanced by either side. Naturally, the arguments and other points (including
illustrative examples) made in the debate must be referenced, in order that the rest of
the seminar group can go to the original source to deepen their understanding.
8
WARNING: non-delivery of seminar work may lead to failure of the unit
Some years ago, a small but irritating minority of students on this unit failed to turn
up and deliver their contributions to the seminar programme. In so doing they let
themselves and the rest of their groups down. We were not prepared to tolerate this
again and so made an important change to the way this unit is assessed.
The assessment for the unit now includes a pass/fail element, as well as the 100%
examination. To get through the pass/fail element, all you have to do is to turn up to
the seminar when it is your turn to lead the debate and present your work. If you do
that, you will pass this element and your mark for the unit will be what you achieve in
the examination.
If you fail to turn up (and do not have a ECF-valid reason), then you will fail this
element of the assessment and will be referred in the unit as a whole, no matter
what you do in the exam. If you are referred in this way, then you will have to do
the referral exam, and the mark for the unit will be capped at 40%. Three years ago,
for the first time, two students on this unit didn’t turn up, didn’t have a valid reason
and were referred.
So, be clear about what is required from you in the seminars, when and where it is
required and make sure that you are there on the day.
LEARNING
In one respect, this unit is different: for most, it will be their first exposure to the study
of ethical ideas. These ideas are complex and difficult to grasp at first, and they often
contradict each other. We design the unit with this in mind, and experience shows
that the great majority are well able to rise to the challenge. However, it’s also clear
that this doesn’t happen automatically and that it can’t be done in a rush at the end of
the unit.
You can choose to study this unit passively or actively – it’s entirely up to you. The
passive approach to the unit involves turning up to lectures and seminars, collecting
the handouts and doing the minimum. By the time of the end of unit, you will
probably have gathered enough knowledge to achieve the learning outcomes (see p2),
meaning that you will get a pass. If that’s OK with you, then it’s OK with us – the
way you allocate your time in your final year is for you to choose. But learning
outcomes are set at the ‘threshold level’, which means 40%. If you want more than a
mark in the 40s or low 50s, then you have to show that you can do more than just
reproduce in the exam the material that we have given you.
In short, you need to take an active approach to the unit. Being active means asking
questions, taking part in discussions in class (or on Victory), getting into the
background reading, or taking opportunities to try out essay plans (or whole essays) in
preparation for the exam. You don’t have to declare yourself as active – all you have
9
to do is to start engaging and we’ll respond. You’ll get feedback and comments on
the things you send us or post and you will find that your abilities and confidence in
the subject will grow. There can’t be any guarantees about exam performance, but
it’s likely that active engagement will be linked to a good performance or better. In
that spirit, here are some notes on learning opportunities in the unit:
•
•
•
•
•
Seminars: we have designed the weekly seminars to promote active
exploration of the arguments by means of case studies and debates. On at least
one occasion, you will be leading the debate on one side or the other. In the
other seminars, you will be participating from the floor. Plainly, what you
(and your colleagues) get out of these seminars will be directly proportional to
what you put in (in terms of preparation, background reading, thinking and
prior discussion).
Lectures: most of the lectures will offer handouts as a basis for your notes. In
one of the lectures, however, there will be very few slides/handouts. The
week concerned is 25/10 (on corporate social responsibility). This is a
deliberate choice on our part: we want you to work out what you think about
these issues, not write down what you think we think. For this lecture, we
have provided a set of readings that you can access via Victory. As you will
see, these papers present some sharply different views about what corporate
social responsibility entails; the aim of the lecture will be to discuss these
differences. It is therefore essential that you do all of the recommended
reading for this week before the lecture and arrive equipped to take notes.
Otherwise, you are unlikely to gain much from the experience.
Background reading: each week in the following schedule, book chapters and
other readings are listed. You must keep up with these, since there will not be
enough time in class to cover the topics to a satisfactory level of detail
Engaging actively with the news media: the forthcoming semester is likely to
bring a wealth of further examples of ethical and unethical conduct by
businesses. You should aim to keep up to date with these developments, in
order to equip yourself with a rich fund of examples to use in class discussions
and the exam. Read a serious newspaper every day and scan the business
pages in particular. Check websites such as the BBC News site regularly.
Look out for radio and TV programmes of possible interest and take notes
while you are listening and watching. We will allude to some examples in
lectures and seminars, but it’s up to you to keep yourself up to date.
Discussion room: see below
DISCUSSION AREA ON VICTORY
Three years ago, we introduced a discussion area to make it easy for students to ask
questions and make comments about the ideas we review on the unit. This allows all
users to see the questions and answers. Anyone registered on the unit is welcome to
visit the discussion area and take part – we’ll aim to respond as quickly as we can.
Taking part in the discussion area is entirely optional – we have no idea how it may
develop over the course of the semester, but we look forward to your contributions.
Last year, we were pleased in the end by the way this developed, despite a relatively
slow start. There were relatively few regular posters, but much larger numbers of
regular visitors, who read the messages but didn’t add their own comments. ‘Read10
only’ visitors are most welcome, but please don’t feel shy about asking questions or
expressing a view on the system. As they say in Tibet:
“Better to live one day as a tiger than a thousand years as a sheep”
And you don’t have to wait for a response from someone on the teaching team before
pitching in with your comments – this is for everyone on the unit.
ASSESSMENT
Assessment of this unit will be by means of a two-hour closed book examination
(100% weighting): you will be invited to attempt two essay-type questions from a
possible four. The University-wide grading criteria (see end of this document) will be
used in marking the examination answers: high scoring answers are likely to be those
that:
•
•
•
•
Provide intelligent, well-justified and imaginative answers to the questions
show an ability to apply a number of different theoretical frameworks in
supporting the points made in answering the question
are able to discuss convincingly the differences between the theoretical
frameworks used
provide appropriate examples to illustrate the points made.
We work to the University target of providing results within twenty working days of
the exam date; should there be an unexpected delay to this, we will keep you updated
via the Victory site.
We will publish the examination questions on the Victory site 24 hours before the
exam itself. It’s still a closed-book exam - the aim of pre-publication is to give you a
chance to think about the questions in advance and we hope to see better focused
answers as a result. The teaching team will not, of course, answer any enquiries about
the exam questions once they are published (or before they are published, for that
matter).
The referral and deferral arrangements for this unit are a further examination
during the referral period: the second exam will have the same format as the first.
Note also the extra element in the assessment for this unit: the pass/fail element
that is determined by whether or not you turn up for the agreed seminar and
present your contribution to the debate (see box on p10 above).
11
Preparing for the exam: special offer
We offer a special service for those who want to build up their skills in essay-writing
for the exam. To take up this offer, all you need to do is to write a 2,000-word, fullyreferenced essay on the following topic and hand it in to Richard Christy’s office
(RB4.07) by the end of Monday 29 November 2010. Don’t take it to the
Undergraduate Centre – they won’t know what to do with it. The essay topic is as
follows (it’s from last year’s exam):
In their best-selling 2008 book “Nudge”, Thaler and Sunstein look at ‘choice
architecture’: the ways in which the presentation of choices can be designed in order
to make it easy for service users or customers to make choices that are in their best
interest. In your view, to what extent are marketing managers ethically responsible
for helping customers to make choices that are good for them? Justify your argument
by reference to appropriate ethical theories and provide examples to illustrate the
points you make.
If you prefer, you can do the essay as if you were in an exam – do your research and
thinking first and then time yourself to take no more than fifty minutes, writing the
answer longhand. If you do this, make a note to that effect at the end, just so that
we’re clear.
Either way, please write your name on the essay, together with a contact e-mail
address, so we can get back to you.
For each essay we receive, we will provide comments and an overall grade from A
(excellent) to E (unsatisfactory). This feedback will be available for collection from
Richard’s office from Monday 13 December 2010 and there’s a very good chance that
we’ll be able to book a one-to-one feedback session, if you wish.
Please be clear – this offer is only for those who want to take it up. It is not part of
the formal assessment for the unit and the grades awarded have no link to the eventual
unit mark. If you want to take up the offer, then go ahead – no extra charge and no
need to pre-book. If you don’t have time, don’t see the point, or just don’t want to,
then don’t take part – we’re fine either way.
12
READING
The key text for this unit is:
Crane, A and Matten, D (2010), Business Ethics, 3e, Oxford
ISBN 978-0-19-928499-3
This is the one that we suggest that you should obtain for the unit.
There are many other textbooks on business ethics and corporate social responsibility:
the following are certainly worth investigating for greater depth and – in some cases –
a different point of view.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bakan, J (2004), The Corporation, Constable
• may be familiar because of the film it was made into: contends that
corporations are large, powerful and purposive entities without
consciences (and therefore dangerous)
De George R.T. (2006) Business Ethics. 6th Ed. Prentice Hall.
• Current edition of a classic American textbook – authoritative and
balanced view of the subject, but very expensive here
Friedman, M. (1962) Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
• fiery stuff from the grand old man of capitalism, who died in 2006:
“thought-provoking”, at the very least
Friedman, M. and Friedman R (1980): Free to Choose, Harcourt
• more from Friedman, this time with Mrs Friedman as well: ‘formidable’,
as they probably wouldn’t say in France
Kay, J (2003), The Truth About Markets, Penguin Allen Lane
• fascinating critique of what Kay calls the American Business Model, with
an examination of the broader social institutions that a successful modern
market economy depends upon.
Sandel, M.J. (2009), Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do? Penguin
• This is the book that supports Sandel’s massively over-subscribed unit at
Harvard (we’ll look at one of the clips early in the lecture programme).
It’s very accessible and often entertaining, to such an extent that you can
overlook how complex his subject material is.
Sternberg E (2000) Just Business, 2nd Edn, Oxford.
• a forceful presentation of Sternberg’s view of business ethics, based on her
view of what a business is for
Michael Sandel’s book is listed above, but you can see the great man in action in a
series of videos showing the twelve lectures of his Harvard unit on ‘Justice’ at this
site:
http://academicearth.org/courses/justice-whats-the-right-thing-to-do
We recommend that you check these out (especially the first six or so, which cover
the same sort of theoretical material as we do) – the lectures are brilliant, of course,
but look also at what happens when students are well-prepared and confident enough
13
to say what they think in lectures...
Under the heading of Ethics and International Business, we will be looking at the
arguments presented in three books on globalisation:
•
•
•
Bhagwati, J (2004), In Defense of Globalization, Oxford
Stiglitz, J (2002), Globalization and its Discontents, Penguin
Wolf, M (2004), Why Globalization Works, Yale University Press
Equally impressive in this area is a series of game-changing books by the admirable
Oxford economist Paul Collier:
•
•
•
The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can Be
Done About It (2008)
War, Guns and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places (2009)
The Plundered Planet: How To Reconcile Prosperity With Nature (2010)
You might also want to look at some of the anti-globalisation arguments, for example:
•
Klein, N (1999), No Logo, Flamingo
You could also look out for Peter Singer’s heartfelt plea:
•
•
Singer, P (2009), The Life you Can Save, Picador
Singer is one of the best-known contemporary moral philosophers: this book is
not at all academic in style and examines whether there can be any moral
basis for continuing to live in Western-style luxury when just a small part of
our surplus wealth could save lives in poor countries. His conclusion is that
there isn’t and it’s a gripping read.
Despite its silly title and grotesquely lurid cover, Misha Glenny’s book about
organised crime is a superb piece of journalism:
•
•
Glenny, M (2009), McMafia: Seriously Organised Crime, Vintage
This is an account of how organised crime (at the extreme end of unethical
business, of course) has taken advantage of the phenomenon of globalisation
since 1990 and how thoroughly it pervades modern life. It’s a harrowing read
in places, but it will put you off fakes and knock-offs for ever. As you might
recall, Blur’s Alex James reached a similar conclusion when he took a close
look at employment conditions in the illegal pharmaceuticals trade a couple of
years ago.
Look, we know this is only a 10-credit unit and that you all have lots of other things to
do in your final year, but just in case some of you want to inform yourselves more
widely, or maybe return to these questions later, here are some additional suggestions.
A number of best-selling books in recent years have influenced the debate in public
policy areas that are of interest to business ethics, including:
14
•
•
•
•
Thaler, R and Sunstein, C (2008), Nudge, Yale University Press
The central idea in this book is about ‘libertarian paternalism’ – arranging
choices so that people are more likely to make the choices that are good for
them. That’s obviously relevant to marketing ethics, but (rather more
depressingly) it was seized upon by both main parties in the run-up to the
recent election as a means of nagging people more effectively. Oh well...
Wilkinson, R and Pickett, K (2010), The Spirit Level, Penguin
The sub-title of this book is ‘why more equal societies almost always do
better’, which is why it was seized on with glee by Guardianistas and lefties
everywhere. I read it last year and was too lazy to work out what I didn’t like
about the book, so it’s interesting to see a statistical debunking of the book’s
findings from Peter Saunders at the (right wing) think tank Policy Exchange,
summarised in the following link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/08/spirit-level-bookcritique
And if you want to follow the story, you can read W&P’s reply to Saunders at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/09/spirit-level-policyexchange
The economist Tim Harford has published two immensely readable (and best-selling)
books: The Undercover Economist and The Logic of Life, both of which show how an
economist’s understanding of incentives can help to explain common human
behaviours. Many of the points he makes – about pricing, or about discrimination, for
example – are also relevant to business ethics. Harford’s blog, at:
http://blogs.ft.com/undercover/
is worth bookmarking and is always entertaining, whether or not you agree with him.
The same is true of Levitt and Dubner’s very popular book ‘Freakonomics’, and the
sequel ‘Superfreakonomics’, which make no attempt at all to be politically correct.
It’s also worth mentioning the two large and densely-written novels by Ayn Rand, the
Russian-born American writer, whose rather demanding (and sometimes unsettling)
philosophy of objectivism is explored in the way her characters interact. We will look
briefly at Rand’s ideas early on in the lecture programme: you almost certainly won’t
have time to read either of the following before the end of the unit.
•
•
•
•
Rand A (2007), The Fountainhead, Penguin Modern Classics
First published in 1943, this novel deals with the progress of an inspired
architect who refuses to compromise.
Rand A (2007), Atlas Shrugged, Penguin Modern Classics
This 1957 novel is even longer than the first and has a truly epic scope. Its
main character doesn’t appear until two-thirds of the way through the book,
and shortly afterwards arranges to deliver a 57-page soliloquy explaining his
position. Deeply strange.
15
However, they do have a cult status in some corners of the business universe, which
may help to explain why these weighty volumes have a surprisingly high sales
ranking on Amazon.
We will also be pointing you towards various other Internet sources as the weeks go
by, usually via the Victory discussion area.
BUSINESS ETHICS AT LEISURE
Modern entertainment technology means that you don’t have to stop thinking about
this unit even when you are relaxing… Here’s a list of selected movies that have
some connection to business ethics, even if it is a little oblique in some cases. Are
they in the exam? Only if you put them there.
First, some films that are directly about corporate misbehaviour, in no particular
order:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Wall Street (1984): the devil gets the best lines in this one – look out for
Gordon Gekko’s “Greed is Good” speech to the stockholders’ meeting.
Boston Legal fans can spot a younger James Spader in a minor role. There’s
a sequel along soon, by the way.
Glengarry Glenross (1992): ‘Lie. Cheat. Steal. All in a day’s work’ as the
blurb has it. Great cast – check out Alec Baldwin’s bullying rant on YouTube
for a sample of what’s in store
The Corporation (2005): see Bakan’s book on the reading list. I haven’t seen
the film and I’m reluctant to spend real money on it – if you get to see it, let
me know what you think
The Passion of Ayn Rand (1999): Helen Mirren stars as the celebrated
philosopher/novelist, although the film has rather more to say about her
private life than her philosophy of objectivism
The China Syndrome (1978): Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon and an early Michael
Douglas in a whistleblowing drama set around a nuclear power plant. Scary.
Supersize Me (2004): saw it on TV, loathed it, but you might not.
The Insider (2000): Russell Crowe plays real-life whistleblower Jeffrey
Wigand, up against the combined wickedness of the tobacco corporations.
Superb.
The Constant Gardener (2006): Based on the le Carré novel about seriously
defective research ethics on the part of “Big Pharma”. Dismissed as entirely
fictional by Big Pharma, of course. Good cast; well-made action thriller
The Hudsucker Proxy (1994): slimy insider dealing in this under-rated Coen
brothers comedy about business life, with Paul Newman and Tim Robbins
Enron: the Smartest Guys in the Room (2006): really well made documentary
film about the rise and collapse of Enron: engaging, exciting, angry about the
scandalous wrong-doing, but in an intelligent and balanced way.
Thank You For Smoking (2005): intelligent, dark, hilarious and deeply
disturbing
Up In the Air (2010): George Clooney plays a consultant whose main work is
being hired by weak managers to fire people. As a job, it’s just as souldestroying as you might think
16
And some oldies, for those who don’t mind black and white:
•
•
•
•
The Man in the White Suit (1951): Alec Guinness’ innovative new fabric
threatens to destroy a whole industry. The industry retaliates.
I’m Alright Jack (1959): satirical comedy about industrial relations, featuring
multiple performances by Peter Sellers
It’s a Wonderful Life (1946): almost bound to be screened at Christmas and
unusual in its portrayal of a business that serves the community by providing a
good service year in, year out (now, there’s a really radical notion…). And
revisit the business ethics of ‘Christmas Carol’ while you’re about it
Citizen Kane (1941): adored by the critics, for obvious reasons
And finally a couple with a looser connection, but interesting anyway:
•
•
•
My Beautiful Laundrette (1985): a film of its time – entrepreneurship and lots
besides in Thatcherite London
Groundhog Day (1993): no harm in the occasional RomCom – this one stars
the appealingly obnoxious Bill Murray, who finds himself stuck in a snowbound time warp and cannot move on until he has learned to be good. The
plot is a journey along the Kohlberg Cognitive Moral Development scale, as
you’ll no doubt be remarking to yourselves
The Godfather (1972): if only for the line ‘I don’t like violence, Tom. I’m a
businessman. Blood is a big expense’. Oh, and it’s also the best film ever
made, as any right-thinking person would agree…
We hope you enjoy studying this unit – we look forward to finding out what you think
and wish you every success.
Richard Christy
Gill Christy
Jan Davies
Vijay Pereira
Sara Spear
17
WEEKLY READING
Session Title
1. Introduction
RC, GC, VP (27/9)
Lecture
•
•
Preparatory
reading:
Crane and Matten, Chapter 1
Session Title
2. Knowing your left from your right
Course introduction, course content and assessment strategy.
Issues in business ethics and corporate social responsibility
RC (4/10)
Lecture
•
•
Preparatory
reading:
Crane and Matten, Chapter 11
Session Title
3. Ethical Theories 1
Why left and right?
Implications for business
GC (11/10)
Lecture
•
•
•
Preparatory
reading:
Crane and Matten, Chapter 3
Fisher and Lovell, Chapters 3 and 4
De George, Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5
Ethical reasoning
Ethics as principles or duties
Ethics as virtues
18
Session Title
4. Ethical Theories 2
RC (18/10)
Lecture
•
•
•
Preparatory
reading:
Crane and Matten, Chapter 3
Fisher and Lovell, Chapters 3 and 4
De George, Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5
Ethics and consequences
Types of consequentialism
Ethics and self-interest
19
Session Title
5. Business and Ethics
RC (25/10)
Lecture
•
•
•
Preparatory
reading:
Moral agency – how do businesses differ from people and
what are the implications for business ethics?
Teleology and the purpose of business
Corporate social responsibility: what does it entail?
Crane and Matten, Chapters 2, 6, 10 and 11
De George Chapters 7 and 8.
The following five readings can be found on the Victory site,
either in file form or as URLs:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Donaldson T and Preston L (1995), The Stakeholder Theory
of The Corporation: Concepts, Evidence and Implications, Ac
of Mgmt Rev, 20, 65-91
Freeman, R E (1994), The politics of Stakeholder Theory:
some future directions, Business Ethics Quarterly, 4/4
Friedman M (1970)’The Social Responsibility of Business is
to Increase its Profits’, New York Times Magazine
Kay, J (1998), The Role of Business in Society,
http://www.johnkay.com/print/133.html (and see also a
number of other relevant notes and papers at this website)
Kay, J (2004), Obliquity, Financial Times, 17 January 2004
Porter M E and Kramer, M R (2006), Strategy and Society:
the Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate
Social Responsibility, Harvard Business Review, December
2006, 78-92
You should also make a note to look at the following exchange of
views from 2005. Do the reading beforehand and
come prepared to listen, take notes and think. There won’t be
any handouts for this key lecture: we want you to work what you
think of these ideas (it’s impossible to agree with them all
simultaneously)
•
•
Economist 22 January 2005: ‘The Good Company – a Survey
of Corporate Social Responsibility’
Ethical Corporation website: ‘Bad Arguments Against the
Good Company’ (response to ‘The Economist’ of 22/1/05)
20
Session Title
6. Corporate Governance and ethical conduct
GC (1/11)
Lecture
•
•
•
Preparatory
reading:
Crane and Matten, Chapters 5 and 6
Fisher and Lovell, Chapter 8
Session Title
7. Ethics and HRM
What are the aims of corporate governance?
What approaches to CG are evident?
What are the current issues in CG?
GC (8/11)
Lecture
•
•
•
•
Preparatory
reading:
Crane and Matten, Chapter 7
Fisher and Lovell, Chapters 6 and 7
Session Title
8. Ethics and the Employment Contract
Employment issues in business ethics
Rights and duties of employers and employees
Discrimination, equal opportunities and diversity
Teleological and deontological approaches
Steve Williams (15/11)
Lecture
•
See lecture handout to be published later
Preparatory
reading:
21
Session Title
9. Marketing and Ethics
RC (22/11)
Lecture
•
•
Preparatory
reading:
Crane and Matten (2007), Chapters 8 and 9
Christy R (2009), Ethics in Marketing Communications, in Fill,
C. (2009), Marketing Communications, 5th edn, FT Prentice Hall
Session Title
10. International Business, Globalisation and World Poverty
The case for and against marketing itself
Good and bad practice in marketing
VP (29/11)
Lecture
•
•
•
Preparatory
reading:
Crane and Matten, Chapters 10 and 11
Bhagwati (2004), In Defense of Globalization
Klein (1999), No Logo
Wolf (2004), Why Globalization Works
Session Title
11. Business Ethics in Practice
The anti- and pro-globalisation arguments
Ethical aspects of large MNC conduct
Implications for business practice and strategy
RC (6/12)
Lecture
Preparatory
reading:
Review of business ethics issues to do with the production,
marketing and consumption of food
Recent media coverage on topics such as Fair Trade, food safety
and health, supermarket power, the obesity ‘epidemic’ etc
(note: there will probably be only a few slides or handouts for
this lecture: you should arrive prepared to take notes)
22
Session Title
12. Revision
RC, GC, VP (13/12)
Lecture
•
Preparatory
reading:
All notes
Review of main topics covered; discussion of how to perform
well in the exam
23
University-wide grading criteria for Undergraduate level 3 units
80+
As below plus:
Outstanding work - contains accurate, relevant material, demonstrates understanding of complex
subject matter & is able to view it in a wider context. Shows originality & confidence in analysing
and criticising assumptions, is aware of the limits of knowledge. Likely to add new insights to the
topic & approaches the quality of published material
Evidence of extensive research, uses & presents references effectively
Outstanding quality in terms of organisation, structure, use & flow of language, grammar, spelling,
format, presentation, diagrams, tables etc
70-79
As below plus:
Outstanding work - contains accurate, relevant material, demonstrates understanding of complex
subject matter & is able to view it in a wider context. Shows originality & confidence in analysing
and criticising assumptions, is aware of the limits of knowledge
Evidence of extensive research, uses & presents references effectively
Excellent in terms of organisation, structure, use & flow of language, grammar, spelling, format,
presentation, diagrams, tables etc
60-69
As below plus:
Very good work - contains most of the information required, is accurate & relevant &
demonstrates understanding of the subject matter & attempts to view it in a wider context. Shows
some originality of thought with good critique & analysis assumptions, is aware of the limits of
knowledge
Well researched, good use & presentation of references
Very good in terms of organisation, structure, use & flow of language, grammar, spelling, format,
presentation, diagrams, tables etc
50-59
As below plus:
Work that attempts to address the topic with some understanding & analysis, key aspects of the
subject matter covered
Research extends to primary sources. Appropriately cited and presented references
Satisfactory presentation with respect to presentation, organisation, language, grammar, spelling,
format, presentation, diagrams, tables etc
The majority of students might normally be expected to fall within this range.
40-49
Adequate work which attempts to address the topic with limited understanding & analysis
Some research using texts, Internet & key reference sources with reference citation and
presentation according to convention
An attempt to follow directions regarding organisation, structure, use & flow of language, grammar,
spelling, format, diagrams, tables etc
30-39
FAIL Anything which is inadequate in most or all of the following: length, content, structure, analysis,
expression, argument, relevance, research and presentation. Work in this range attempts to address the
question/problem but is substantially incomplete and deficient. Serious problems with a number of
aspects of language use are often found in work in this range
<29
FAIL No serious attempt to address the question or problem, and/or manifests a serious
misunderstanding of the requirements of the assignment. Acutely deficient in all aspects.
24