Companies that contribute to charitable organizations rightly hope that their philanthropic work will also be good for the bottom line. Marketers of good corporate conduct must be especially careful, however, to market such conduct in a morally acceptable fashion. Although marketers typically engage in mild deception or take artistic license when marketing goods and services, these sorts of practices are far more morally troublesome when used to market good corporate conduct. I argue that although mild deception is not substantially worrisome (...) with respect to the marketing of most goods and services, it is a far greater moral blunder to use such methods in the marketing of good corporate character. These erode trust and demonstrate alack of adequate respect for the moral good. In light of these concerns, I suggest that such practices must be re-examined when applied to the marketing of corporate character and good conduct. Finally, I develop a revised set of ethical guidelines that are needed in order to address the problems peculiar to the marketing of morally praiseworthy behavior. (shrink)

When one addresses boycotts, the efforts of the Montgomery bus boycotts to end segregation likely come to mind. However, the moral merits of a boycott are not always so clearly determined and how a company reacts to a boycott can have long lasting repercussions for its public image. In this article, I will examine a number of boycotts including boycotts by the American Family Association of both Ford and Proctor & Gamble based on their advertising venue choices. In a politically (...) and morally charged atmosphere, it can be difficult for companies to determine where their moral obligations lie while at the same time being mindful of the bottom line. I suggest a number of guidelines to aid in corporate moral decision making when faced with a boycott. (shrink)

In the wake of Citizens United v. the Federal Elections Commission, more companies are spending heavily on political speech, but the moral implications of doing so are not clear. Few business ethicists have directly addressed the moral legitimacy of corporate political speech and the conditions under which it may be morally permissible. My goal here is to outline the moral hazards associated with engaging in corporate political speech. I argue that whether one takes a narrow Friedman-style shareholder primacy view of (...) managerial duty, a broader stakeholder view, or an even more wide-ranging political corporate social responsibility view of the moral duties of business, various moral hazards must be taken into account in determining the moral legitimacy of corporate political speech. I discuss a number of moral hazards endemic to corporate political speech and suggest ways in which business practitioners might avoid those moral hazards. (shrink)

. Although the courts have ruled that companies are legal persons, they have not yet made clear the extent to which political free speech for corporations is limited by the strictures legitimately placed upon corporate commercial speech. I explore the question of whether or not companies can properly be said to have the right to civil free speech or whether corporate speech is always de facto commercial speech not subject to the same sorts of legal protections as is the right (...) to civil free speech. In the absence of clearly defined legal precedent, I emphasize moral reasons for determining the appropriate limits of corporate civil free speech. Appealing to arguments typically used to justify individual rights to civil free speech, I examine the extent to which this sort of justification may or may not be legitimately extended to corporations. I conclude that corporate rights to civil free speech must be restricted because granting rights of free speech to institutions may, in practice, undermine the moral rationale and practical feasibility of guaranteeing rights of civil free speech to individuals. Furthermore, I argue that granting corporations full rights to civil free speech will undercut attempts to develop good moral character in corporate institutions by undermining the efforts of watchdog organizations. (shrink)

When the Federal Communications Commission considered revamping its policies, many political activists argued that media conglomerates had failed to meet their duties to protect freedom of speech. Moveon's dispute with CBS over its proposed Superbowl advertisement and Michael Moore's quarrel over distribution of his documentary, Fahrenheit 911, are cases in point. In matters of pure entertainment, the public expect companies to avoid offensive programming. The press, on the other hand, may well be forced to offend some audience members in order (...) to create a viable forum for political dissent. As journalism and entertainment are increasingly inter-linked, an in depth moral analysis of the media corporation and its obligations becomes increasingly important. I explore Kantian, Utilitarian, and Rawlsian analyses of corporate obligation in the aforementioned cases. I then examine whether or not these results suggest anything more generally about the sorts of mission statements and ethical policies that ought to be endorsed by media conglomerates and whether non-business institutions also require changes. Ultimately, I suggest that at a minimum, media institutions should view the duty to promote the representation of diverse views in a democracy as an imperfect moral and civic duty rather than making programming decisions solely by reference to profit. Ideally, greater access to media access should not be increased for the most powerful unless doing so at the same time increases free speech opportunities for those who currently have the least access. (shrink)

Recently, several articles have asserted that corporate social responsibility programs have gone too far and need to be reigned in. These critics have charged that corporate social responsibility is to be regarded with skepticism and that any changes in corporate accountability should be superficial at best. I will examine a␣number of these objections; I conclude that these critiques are largely ill founded, but that their increasing frequency in popular media is a cause for concern. I argue that these purported objections (...) are better understood as one part of a long-term cycle that generally accompanies positive moral change in institutions. Using the feminist movement as a touchstone, I examine the similarities between backlash against the movement for corporate accountability as compared to backlash against feminists. I␣also suggest ways in which successful strategies adopted by feminists could be used effectively to communicate the aims of those working to increase awareness of business accountability. (shrink)

As the efficiency and reach of global fishing has grown, overfishing has unwittingly undermined the industry’s future while at the same time depriving poor people of a dietary staple. Several problems that most concern the critics of globalization come into play: undermining the power of governments to protect their environments and citizens, an economic system that robs the poor and future generations of basic necessities, and market developments that undercut long term economic and environmental stability. I examine how creative institutional (...) measures could avert total collapse of ocean ecosystems despite the complexity of enacting marine ethics in a globalized economy. I look at companies that work with the Marine Stewardship Council’s criteria as well as more creative measures including revamped marketing and changes in how members of the industry work together in order to encourage long term environmental and economic sustainability. (shrink)

In May of 2009, the Stockholm Convention added nine chemicals to its list of banned or restricted chemicals. While some businesses may be tempted to see further limitations on chemical production of persistent organic pollutants as an inconvenient hindrance, I argue that business ought to see strengthened rules as an opportunity to improve efficiency and to become more competitive in the global market place both financially and ethically. By re-examining not only product design but also products purchased, every company can (...) reduce their ecological footprint at a molecular level. And as more companies demand a greener supply chain, consumers also benefit from greater availability of greener products. (shrink)