Introduction In this module, we examined ethics and, in particular, ethics in the workplace. We also looked at social responsibility as it pertains to businesses (and other organizations) and the...

Introduction
In this module, we examined ethics and, in particular, ethics in the workplace. We also looked at social responsibility as it pertains to businesses (and other organizations) and the communities in which businesses operate. In this assignment, you will evaluate the level or degree to which a business, organization, and/or government agency is engaging in ethical and socially responsible practices. You will present this evaluation from multiple stakeholder perspectives.
Part A is a report on ethical standards, and Part B is a report on an ethical or corporate social responsibility issue in society.
Part A: Instructions
Read the following:
· Donaldson, T. (1996, September). Values in tension: Ethics away from home. Harvard Business Review, 74(5), 48–62. 
· read Discussion Case: Chiquita Brands: Ethical Responsibility or Illegal Action on pages 111-112of your textbook.
Answer the following two questions:
· Question 1: Do you feel that it is possible to develop a universal set of ethical standards for business, or do you believe that cultural differences make universal standards impractical and/or impossible? (15 marks)
· Question 2: Do corporations have a right and/or a responsibility to influence ethics in the countries in which they operate? Defend your position. (15 marks)
Part B: Instructions
Write a 2,500-word, double-spaced report on corporate social responsibility and related ethical issues in society. Demonstrate your ability to integrate your learning from all aspects of this module. Ensure that you include information from the course material, the readings, your journal, and your own research. Select a topical, newsworthy issue that involves ethical and social responsibility issues relating to business and society. Following is the topic:
Corporations manufacturing and distributing genetically modified foods in Canada
Your report should cover the following:
Section 1. Introduction: Introduce the topic and identify the CSR (and ethical) issue(s) that are of concern. Then, list the stakeholders that influence or are influenced by this issue. Be specific in naming individuals, groups, associations, and/or government bodies. Cite references for your research. (10 marks)
Section 2. Rationale: Analyze the ethics of the issues involved using three of the methods of ethical reasoning (utility, rights and justice) described on pages 83–87 of your textbook. Then, indicate which of the three methods you feel is most helpful in evaluating the ethics of the relevant issue(s). Explain the reasons for your choice. (30 marks)
Note
In Section 2 Rationale, rather than estimating the actual costs and benefits involved, you may simply identity and describe the costs and benefits that you would consider (if actual cost-benefit information is not provided in the literature).
Section 3. Impacts (What does this mean to my family?): Describe the potential and/or real impacts to you and your family. Are these impacts direct or indirect? Briefly explain why. (5 marks)
Section 4. Impacts (What does this mean to my community?): Explore the potential and/or real impacts on the local or site community, as well as real or potential impacts on other communities. Describe these impacts from multiple perspectives, ensuring you represent both community and corporate (or organizational) perspectives. (15 marks)
Section 5. Impacts (What does this mean to my country?): Are there
oader impacts or ramifications associated with this issue? If yes, how do this ethical and CSR issue impact business and society in Canada as a whole? If no, explain why not. (10 marks)

R L D V I E W
when is different just different, and
when is different wrong}
y Thomas Donaldson
When we leave home and cross
our nation's boundaries, moral clar-
ity often blurs. Without a backdrop
of shared attitudes, and without
familiar laws and judicial procedures
that define standards of ethical con-
duct, certainty is elusive. Should a
company invest in a foreign country
where civil and political rights are
violated? Should a company go along
with a host country's discriminatory
employment practices? If companies
in developed countries shift facili-
ties to developing nations that lack
strict environmental and health reg-
ulations, or if those companies
choose to fill management and othe
top-level positions in a host nation
with people from the home country,
whose standards should prevail?
Even the best-informed, best-
intentioned executives must re-
think their assumptions about busi-
ness practice in
foreign settings.
What works in a
company's home
country can fail in
a country with different standards of
ethical conduct. Such difficulties are
unavoidable for businesspeople who
live and work a
oad.
But how can managers resolve the
problems? What are the principles
that can help them work through
the maze of cultural differences and
establish codes of conduct for glob-
ally ethical business practice? How
can companies answer the toughest
question in global business ethics:
What happens when a host country's
ethical standards seem lower than
the home country's?
Competing Answers
One answer is as old as philosoph-
ical discourse. According to cultural
elativism, no culture's ethics are
etter than any other's; therefore
there are no international rights and
wrongs. If the people of Indonesia
tolerate the
ibery of their public
officials, so what? Their attitude is
no better or worse than that of peo-
ple in Denmark or Singapore who
efuse to offer or accept
ibes. Like-
wise, if Belgians fail to find inside
trading morally repugnant, who
cares? Not enforcing insider-trading
laws is no more or less ethical than
enforcing such laws.
The cultural relativist's creed-
When in Rome, do as the Romans
do - is tempting, especially when
failing to do as the locals do means
forfeiting business opportunities.
The inadequacy of cultural rela-
tivism, however, becomes apparent
when the practices in question are
more damaging than petty
ibery o
insider trading.
In the late 1980s, some European
tanneries and pharmaceutical com-
panies were looking for cheap waste-
dumping sites. They approached vir-
tually every country on Africa's west
coast from Morocco to the Congo.
Values in Tension:
Nigeria agreed to take highly toxic
polychlorinated bipbenyls. Unpro-
tected local workers, wearing thongs
and shorts, unloaded ba
els of PCBs
and placed them near a residential
area. Neither the residents nor the
workers knew that the ba
els con-
tained toxic waste.
We may denounce governments
that permit such abuses, but many
countries are unable to police trans-
national corporations adequately
even if they want to. And in many
countries, the combination of inef-
fective enforcement and inadequate
egulations leads to behavior by un-
scrupulous companies that is clearly
wrong. A few years ago, for example,
a group of investors became inter-
ested in restoring the SS United
States, once a luxurious ocean liner.
Before the actual restoration could
egin, the ship had to be stripped of
its asbestos lining. A bid from a U.S.
company, based on U.S. standards
for asbestos removal, priced the jo
48 DRAWINGS BY MICHAEL REAGAN
at more than $100 million. A com-
pany in the Ukranian city of Sevas-
topol offered to do the work for less
than $2 million. In October 1993,
the ship was towed to Sevastopol.
A cultural relativist would have
no problem with that outcome, but I
do. A country has the right to estab-
lish its own health and safety regu-
lations, but in the case described
above, the standards and the terms
of the contract could not possibly
have protected workers in Sevas-
topol from known health risks. Even
if the contract met Ukranian stan-
dards, ethical businesspeople must
object. Cultural relativism is moral-
ly blind. Tbere are fundamental val-
ues that cross cultures, and compa-
nies must uphold them. [For an
economic argument against cultural
elativism, see the insert "Tbe Cul-
ture and Ethics of Software Piracy.")
W O R L D V I E W
they bad used witb U.S. managers:
the participants were asked to dis-
cuss a case in which a manage
makes sexually explicit remarks to
a new female employee over drinks
in a bar. The instructors failed to
consider how the exercise would
work in a culture witb strict conven-
tions governing relationships be-
tween men and women. As a result,
the training sessions were ludicrous.
Tbey baffled and offended the Saudi
participants, and the message to
avoid coercion and sexual discrimi-
nation was lost, ^z" ••"'•-'^'
The theory behind ethical imperi-
alism is absolutism, wbich is based
on t
ee problematic principles. Ab-
solutists believe tbat there is a single
list of truths, tbat they can be ex-
pressed only with one set of con-
cepts, and that they call for exactly
the same behavior around tbe world.
loyalty to their companies, thei
usiness networks, and their nation.
Americans place a higher value on
liberty tban on loyalty; tbe U.S. tra-
dition of rights emphasizes equality,
fairness, and individual freedom. It
is hard to conclude that truth lies on
one side or tbe other, but an abso-
lutist would have us select just one.
The second problem witb abso-
lutism is tbe presumption tbat peo-
ple must express moral truth using
only one set of concepts. For in-
stance, some absolutists insist that
the language of basic rights provide
the framework for any discussion of
continued, on page 52
Ethics Away from Home
At the other end of tbe spectrum
from cultural relativism is ethical
imperialism, wbicb directs people to
do everywbere exactly as they do at
home. Again, an understandably ap-
pealing approach but one tbat is
clearly inadequate. Consider the
large U.S. computer-products com-
pany tbat in 1993 introduced a
course on sexual harassment in its
Saudi Arabian facility. Under the
anner of global consistency, in-
structors used the same approach to
train Saudi Arabian managers that
Tbe first claim clasbes with many
people's belief tbat different cultural
traditions must be respected. In
some cultures, loyalty to a commu-
nity - family, organization, or soci-
ety - is tbe foundation of all etbical
ehavior. The Japanese, for example,
define business ethics in terms of
Thomas Donaldson is a professor at
the Wharton School of the Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia,
where he teaches business ethics.
He wrote The Etbics of International
Business (Oxford University Press,
1989) and is the coauthor, with
Thomas W. Dunfee, of Business
Ethics as Social Contracts, to be
published by the Harvard Business
School Press in the fall of 1997.
HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1996
W O R L D V I E W
The Culture and Ethics of
Softv^are Piracy
Before jumping on the cultural
elativism bandwagon, stop and
consider the potential economic
consequences of a when-in-Rome
attitude toward business ethics.
Take a look at the cu
ent statis-
tics on software piracy: In the
United States, pirated software is
estimated to be 35% of the total
software market, and industry
losses are estimated at $2.3 bil-
lion per year. The piracy rate is
57% in Germany and 80% in
Italy and Japan; tbe rates in most
Asian countries are estimated to
e nearly 100%.
There are similar laws against
software piracy in those coun-
tries. What, then, accounts fo
the differences? Although a coun-
try's level of economic develop-
ment plays a large