Analysis of Discussion Comments
Please review the DQ forum for this week. Select 2-3 postings from your peers to analyze in your personal assignment response. For your personal assignment this week:
Write a 1-2 page summary on your analysis of the discussion comments and how you believe this content has increased your ethical self-awareness. Please include alternatives, analysis, application, and action.
The assignment should be submitted as a Word document and APA format is required. The title page and reference page are not counted in the 1-2 page requirement.
*Please remember to include your results from this assignment on your ethics portfolio for the final project. The dropbox will be in Week 8.
Post 1
Question 1
The first video case study was quite interesting as it was referring to corporate social responsibility and how that affects the outcome of an organizations profits and reputation. Social responsibility is essentially when a business undertakes a goal, such as partnering with a green non-profit organization, which assists the organization in becoming environmentally friendly. My opinion is that organizations should practice social responsibility, as it not only improves the world around us by providing for the greater good it also increases the reputation of the organization, which in turn, allows it to become more profitable (Chen, Hang, Pavelin & Porter, 2020). For example, Starbucks has many corporate social responsibility programs, such as banning the use of straws for specific drinks, as their straws were filling up land fills and negatively impacting the environment. When it comes to creating a social responsibility program, organizations must have stakeholder support, or else the program may fail. A failed social responsibility program could negatively affect the reputation of the organization, and essentially cause it to lose its profit margin (Chenet.al,2020). The main consideration when thinking of for-profit organizations is that they are essentially designed to generate maximum revenues for their stakeholders and/or share owners.
Question 2
The second video provided a different case study that was dealing essentially with the ethics of using humans as test subjects. Having a background in anthropology, as that is what my undergraduate degree is in, I know that human testing is something that needs to be reviewed by a review board, especially if it is conducted via a research center. Although this may be true for standard human testing, it is not necessary when someone is using a private company. As the second case study was concerned with implanting people with microchips, it makes it difficult to fully develop a response as to the ethical nature of the implant. Being a cyber security professional, I have many reservations concerning the use case of the microchip and what the microchip is actually relaying back to the company. Is the microchip only providing GPS data? How is the microchip relaying the data? How is that data relay secured? Is there a form of encryption being used to relay personally identifiable information, as any implanted device has an identification tag that can be traced back to a single individual?
With these questions in mind from the previous paragraph, I could not ethically support the microchip implants on humans. My ethical response comes from my professional background and the fact that I am unsure of the nature of the use case, it is ethically incorrect to allow such a device to be implanted. Within my profession, we must provide a response to data security, and if we cannot ensure that data can be secured, we are ethically responsible for detailing where the lack of security stems. As I cannot provide a direct link to data security, I am unable to ethically support this device.
Cheng, Z., Hang, H., Pavelin, S., & Porter, L. (2020). Corporate social (lr) responsibility and corporate hypocrisy: warmth, motive and the protective value of corporate social responsibility.Business Ethics Quarterly, 30(4), 486-524. 10.1017/beq.2019.50
Post2
Question 1
For profit businesses exist in order to generate profit and reward investors. In doing so they often times create externalities which damage the environment from which they pull resources fisheries and forests are prime examples. However, unscrupulous business practices, or short sighted, get rich quick schemes may work for businesses in the short run, but are wholly unsustainable for continued business endeavors (i.e., extraction or harvesting). Therefore, thinking in the long term is good for continued business. However, what companies, groups or governments can afford to have, or even attract, the nonprofit group, The Nature Conservancy to partner with them to make their operations more sustainable? Though it may look good on paper, how does the company get all of its stakeholders on board? Will a competitor also be able to receive the same benefit or will they be forced to counter? The practice of social responsibility, as Ferrell, Ferrell & Fraedrich (2019) point out, is good business and generally helps portray the company in a positive manner, thereby boosting the businesses image and leading to repeat customers.Sitko, Woolley & Chapman (2016) confirm that the Nature Conservancy has assisted wood harvesters in Arizona by increasing forest management efficiencies and transparency while also further implementing forest restoration.
Question 2
Provided my view posted in the week one discussion post on (the lack of) business ethics today, I too would be wary of an employer insisting on implanting a chip into my person. From the seemingly innocuous Allstate Drivewise app, peddled as a way to lower a members insurance costs, according toHensley (2019), to ones personal web browsing history and decoded DNA, there exists valuable data which could end up being used against a person (unwittingly or unwillingly). Without a delineated contract stating what the information will be used for, or if it will be sold, there will always be a one-sided benefit towards the entity that holds the information cache. Furthermore, how secure is the company that holds the data? Outside of hackers or data breaches, Rosenbaum (2018) muses that as businesses are bought and sold and a new parent company decides what to do with ones private data, there may be new initiatives to sell, or otherwise mine that data for paid advertising or other purposes.
Yet, after the passage of the Patriot Act, Americans will never be able to know that they are free from search. Newman (2015) points out that Google may sell private data to advertisers who then, not only specifically target individuals based upon their history, but may also price discriminate, raising the prices for that targeted individual.
References
Ferrell, L., Ferrell, O. C. & Fraedrich, J. (2019).Business ethics; Ethical decision making and cases, (12thed.). Cengage Learning Inc.
Hensley, J. (2019, October 10).The risks of using car insurance tracking devices. Hensleylegal. Retrieved December 14, 2020, fromhttps://hensleylegal.com/car-insurance-tracking-device/
Rosenbaum, E. (2018, June 16).5 biggest risks of sharing your DNA with consumer genetic-testing companies. CNBC.Retrieved December 14, 2020, fromhttps://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/16/5-biggest-risks-of-sharing-dna-with-consumer-genetic-testing-companies.htm
Sitko, S., Woolley, T., & Chapman, N. (2016). Technology and trees: Increasing trust and efficiencies in forest restoration.Arizona State Law Journal,48(1), 125138.
