Discuss whether globalisation encourages or discourages the pursuit of good ethics as the
foundation of good business.
Introduction
Define: Globalisation- The integration of economies, industries, markets, cultures and policymaking
around the world.
Importance: Customers like to do business with companies they trust and globalisation seems to
encourage poor ethics.
Scholars: Kant, Bentham, Mill, Bowie
Conclusion: Globalisation discourages the pursuit of good ethics as the foundation of good business.
Paragraph 1
Point: Globalisation discourages the pursuit of good ethics as the foundation of good business.
Argument: Globalisation affects business in different ways. It may change ethical approaches to the
markets of different cultures and may affect environmental policies when transport and trade comes
into use. Multinational companies provide jobs and wealth to third-world countries. Multinationals
also provide competition, leading to more jobs and lower costs.
Bowie suggests some features of a business that Kant would expect: Consider all affected
stakeholders when decision-making, ensure that no one stakeholder automatically takes priority in
any decision, not simply consider the no. of stakeholders affected when the interests of one group
must be set against another, ensure that profit-making has some duty of beneficence, ensure that
relations with stakeholders should be governed by rules of justice.
Counterargument: However, multinationals in third-world countries often lead to lower wages for
workers. Crane and Matten describe globalisation as "deterriorisation". 250 million children work
worldwide. Sweatshops are obviously a major issue for several reasons, some of which include: child
labour, poor health and safety, no breaks in order to boost production, abuse to workers, trade
unions banned.
Globalisations means that the interests of the shareholders are more important than the interest of
the employees or the consumers, and it means that the poorest people have just 1.4% of the global
income.
Paragraph 2
Point: Globalisation discourages the pursuit of good ethics as the foundation of good business
Argument: Case Study-Nike had no minimum wages, proper working conditions, or adequate health
and safety. Sexual harassment was also noted in the factories. Sweatshops- Nike has been criticized
for contracting with factories (known as Nike sweatshops) in countries such as China, Vietnam,
Indonesia and Mexico. Vietnam Labour Watch, an activist group, has documented that factories
contracted by Nike have violated minimum wage and overtime laws in Vietnam as late as 1996,
although Nike claims that this practice has been stopped.
, Utilitarianism – Bentham and Mill were both social reformers, forcing governments and companies
to consider the well-being of ordinary people. Mill would have been appalled at Nike’s treatment of
workers. For Mill, people need to be given safe working conditions, holidays, education for children
etc. All of this is part of bringing about their happiness. Globalisation has divided Utilitarians. This is
caused by differences of opinion concerning whether globalisation will achieve a utilitarian purpose
of maximising human happiness or welfare.
Kant – If I was making a law for a kingdom of people who were ends in themselves, I would require
safe working conditions, a decent wage for all people, no child labour etc. Nike have not behaved as
law-making members of a kingdom of ends. Instead, they allowed a series of abuses in order to
make a greater profit.
Paragraph 3
Point: Globalisation can pursue good ethics but ultimately discourages this.
Argument: On 24 April 2013, a poorly-made Bangladeshi factory collapsed. The factory had supplied
Primark and other companies, like Wal-Mart and Benetton, with low-cost clothing. Over 1100 people
died in the building, called the Rana Plaza, and more than 2500 were injured. The day before the
collapse, shops on the ground floor of the eight-storey complex were closed after cracks appeared in
the building, but the garment workers were ordered to return to work; some were threatened with
being docked a month’s pay if they did not go back. An investigation after the disaster showed that
the upper factory floors had been built without permits and without any reinforcement for the
heavy machines the clothes were made on.
The Rana Plaza had been converted into a factory and the extra unauthorised floors had been added
because the corporations would only give contracts to businesses that could meet large orders for
the cheapest prices.
Counterargument: International reactions to disasters like the Rana Plaza collapse can lead to these
corporations being pressured into accepting corporate social responsibility for more of their
stakeholders. A fund was set up to give all the companies who had placed orders at Rana Plaza a
chance to contribute to compensation for injured workers and the families of those who had died.
There was then a global petition to put pressure on businesses to make a payment into the fund. It
took three years, but the fund eventually reached its target of $30 million. Pressure on city
authorities in Bangladesh as a result of the disaster, also meant health and safety inspections for all
buildings used for manufacturing, with 35 unsafe factories being closed.
