PHI FPX 2000 Assessment 2 Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility
Phillip March 28, 2024 No Comments

PHI FPX 2000 Assessment 2 Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility

PHI FPX 2000 Assessment 2 Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility

Name

Capella University

PHI FPX 2000 Ethics

Prof. Name

Date

Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) entails various interpretations across industries due to differences in financial obligations and stakeholder dynamics. Embracing sustainable development, which encompasses Corporate Social Responsibility and business ethics, is crucial for meeting present needs without compromising the prospects of future generations, thus giving rise to the establishment of sustainable development goals. Corporate responsibility is increasingly embraced, with heightened scrutiny from businesses, consumers, scholars, and policymakers (Manasakis, 2018).

Ethical Issues and Their Relationships

The current landscape presents ethical dilemmas, notably concerning informed consent and the potential exposure of sensitive genetic information. Uchromz, having amassed millions of DNA samples within its expanding biobank, faces risks associated with security, confidentiality, and potential misuse by external parties. Privacy, security, informed consent, and confidentiality emerge as significant ethical considerations, with challenges in obtaining truly informed consent (Darby & Weinstock, 2018).

Clarity in consent forms is essential for DNA donors due to ambiguous language, ensuring transparency and safety. Privacy and confidentiality stand as paramount ethical principles, and Uchromz must responsibly safeguard customer information, particularly when dealing with third parties beyond its control (Noroozi et al., 2018).

Stakeholders’ Primary Interests

Uchromz stakeholders, including the company itself, consumers, and collaborating institutions, possess distinct interests. Uchromz endeavors to adhere to ethical and legal standards, safeguard customer privacy, and mitigate potential risks. Consumers seek genetic testing for ancestry and health insights while retaining control over their DNA data. Collaborating institutions aspire to access a vast DNA biobank for research endeavors and partnerships with a successful biotech entity like Uchromz (Schumacher et al., 2020).

Normative Ethical Theory

Utilitarianism, a normative ethical theory emphasizing actions and consequences, provides a flexible framework. Applying Utilitarianism to the scenario, Uchromz prioritizes the security and confidentiality of DNA donors, aligning its interests with those of customers, employees, and other stakeholders (Häyry, 2020).

Milton Friedman’s Stakeholder’s Theory

Friedman’s stakeholder theory posits that a business’s primary duty is to advance stakeholders’ financial interests, accentuating profit maximization. Uchromz must strike a balance among stakeholders’ interests to attain long-term prosperity, applying this theory to prioritize stakeholders’ primary interests and values (Okafor et al., 2021).

Traditional Theory of Normative Ethics

In the deontological theory of normative ethics, actions are assessed based on their conformity with ethical rules or principles. As part of its corporate social responsibility, Uchromz must shield the privacy and security of DNA donors by limiting third-party information sharing (Barrow & Khandhar, 2019).

Deficiencies of Milton Friedman’s Shareholder Theory

Milton Friedman’s Shareholder Theory, centered on profit maximization and limited social responsibility, has drawn criticism for prioritizing short-term profits over broader societal and environmental concerns. Uchromz should prioritize safety and security over profit, adhering to fundamental ethical values and ensuring stakeholders’ protection (Clarke, 2020).

Conclusion

In summary, CSR encompasses sustainable development, considering social, environmental, and economic dimensions for enduring business impacts. Business ethics steers companies toward integrity, and embracing normative ethical theories aids in effectively addressing ethical challenges.

References

Barrow, J. M., & Khandhar, P. B. (2019). Deontology. Nih.gov. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459296

Clarke, T. (2020). The Contest on corporate purpose: Why Lynn Stout was right, and Milton Friedman was wrong. Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2020-0145

Darby, W. C., & Weinstock, R. (2018). The limits of confidentiality: Informed consent and psychotherapy. Focus, 16(4), 395–401. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.focus.20180020

Elrick, J., & Thies, C. F. (2018). The social responsibility of business: Milton Friedman reconsidered. Journal of Markets & Morality, 21(2). https://www.marketsandmorality.com/index.php/mandm/article/view/1356

PHI FPX 2000 Assessment 2 Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility

Häyry, M. (2020). Just better Utilitarianism. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 30(2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180120000882

Manasakis, C. (2018). Business ethics and corporate social responsibility. Managerial and Decision Economics, 39(4), 486–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.2921

Noroozi, M., Zahedi, L., Bathaei, F. S., & Salari, P. (2018). Challenges of confidentiality in clinical settings: Compilation of an ethical guideline. Iranian Journal of Public Health, 47(6), 875–883. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6077627/

Okafor, A., Adeleye, B. N., & Adusei, M. (2021). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Evidence from U.S tech firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 292, 126078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126078

Schumacher, G. J., Sawaya, S., Nelson, D., & Hansen, A. J. (2020). Genetic information insecurity as state of the art. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2020.591980

PHI FPX 2000 Assessment 2 Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility