Introduction Is it true that the "bottom line" of a business is profit and profit alone?  Perhaps it is for some companies, but the idea of the “triple bottom line” has been around for quite some time—and it refers not just to profits but also to people and planet. The triple bottom line has received renewed interest since the rise of the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) which refers to a company’s advocacy of and support for the values important to the “social, environmental and economic environment in which” the company operates (Castka, Bamber & Sharp, 2005, p. vii). When companies fail to consider the triple bottom line—the impact of their business operations on people and the planet as well as on profits—then they fall into that group of companies condemned by Feldman (2012) in his Sunday Review letter: such corporations fail to appreciate “how their obsession with the bottom line is shrinking their markets, both domestic and foreign.” In other words, companies have a moral obligation to multiple stakeholders—consumers, suppliers, community members and not just stockholders, as Sir James Goldsmith has argued (Rose, 1994). However, Whitehead’s statement calls into question the legitimacy of the moral argument, insisting that ethics is a purely subjective paradigm and is whatever the majority of people want it to be at any given time: "What is morality in any given time and place? It is what the majority then and there happen to like and immorality is what they dislike" (BrainyQuote, 2018). This paper will show why morality and ethics matter and why they must be objectively defined and fixed for the good of all—rather than, as Whitehead says, a loose concept that can be altered to justify one’s immoral and unethical course. It will use deontological ethics, teleological ethics,...

In other words, the rules are determined by the duty that is expected of one as dictated by the ethical code of conduct. The rules are generally universal in character and are connected with traditional moral norms, such as lying is wrong, stealing is wrong, and so on. As Goldsmith points out, companies are duty-bound by the rules of conventional ethics to look after all...…it needs to exist. The company, like man, is not an end in itself as it cannot sustain itself of its own essence. Its essence is to be part of a relationship with investors, consumers, communities, and the planet. To ignore the totality of this relationship and to focus wholly on investors—and, moreover, to imagine that this would be ethically sound—is to adopt the position of ethical relativism. It is akin to building one’s ethical framework on sand—there is no solid foundation under it, and in time the sands of relativism show as much. Numerous examples abound: Enron, Bear Stearns, AIG, and so on.
Conclusion

Whitehead’s process philosophy—i.e., the belief that change and “becoming” serve as the foundation for reality and thus for ethics—can be sharply contrasted with Kant’s categorical imperative—i.e., the belief that universals exist and can be objectively known. Whitehead is rooted in relativism, while Kant is rooted in classical objectivism. Businesses can and must have ethical standards, despite the fact that businesses are not moral agents, because they are governed by moral agents—human beings—who must consider their duty to all stakeholders, the ends of their actions, and the objective ideals that exist to show them…