Glen Whelan of the University of Nottingham

¶ … Glen Whelan of the University of Nottingham discusses the political perspective of corporate social responsibility (CSR), which he claims is but one form of globalization, rather than a consequence of globalization. The distinction is an important one according to Whelan, who argues the political perspective of CSR has not been sufficiently addressed in the literature on business ethics, the humanities or the social sciences. He believes the political activities of multi-national corporations (MNCs) should not be "under the radar," but open and understood.

The intended audience of the paper is those who have an academic interest in business ethics. Obviously, one would hope that ethical standards would be, for every corporation, not just a concern but a priority. The focus of this article, however, is not a how-to for chief executive officers, but rather a call for greater research in the field, research that can, presumably, inform instruction in undergraduate and graduate business programs and eventually make principals more aware and accountable for their actions. Whelan makes a number of suggestions for future research rather than specific guidelines for corporations to consider. He suggested that researchers consider business ethics in the context of political philosophy, international relations and even what he terms "foundational philosophy" (Whelan; cited in Hartman and DesJardins, 2008, p. 730) such as the writings of Immanuel Kant. Such a philosophical approach is probably beyond nearly all executives of multi-national corporations -- not that they are incapable of understanding, only that in the face of daily decisions about market share and profits, the philosophical underpinnings of business ethics is lost. Whelan crafts a valid argument for the need to study business ethics, but beyond his esoteric notions, he offers no real practical strategies for bringing ethics to the fore in the world of MCNs.

As Whelan points out, "globalization" is a term used to describe a new inter-connectedness of peoples as a result of technological means (e.g., the Internet, air travel) and/or organizational means (e.g., multi-national corporations). Globalization has been blamed for diminished standards in a number of regards, from environmental practices to human rights. Because of this negative connotation of globalization, it can be viewed as an unwanted consequence rather than a form of business practice. If globalization is viewed in this dim light, positive consequences are obfuscated. In the world of MCNs, as with most things in life, seldom can an organization or entity be reduced to simple black and white, good or bad, benevolent or evil.

Whelan cites studies that view corporations' decisions as ranging from altruistic to those motivated by "enlightened" self-interest and plain self-interest. Western MNCs are generally presumed to be motivated predominately by demands from shareholders for maximum profits. It is difficult for any corporation to claim otherwise when "globalization" is a pejorative term. Yet the fact remains that corporations are in business to make money. They are not organizations formed for the public good, although that might be a by-product of the goods and/or services they provide. Without profit, MCNs would cease to exist. They are not in business to provide a public service and consumers, presumably, have choices. Whelan cites British Petroleum (BP) as yet one example of a company that felt it necessary to rebrand itself; Whelan could not have known how prophetic was his use of this company as an example. Following the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that devastated the coastal environment, BP indeed had to demonstrate that it was "Beyond Petroleum" in its willingness to undertake clean up efforts and restore Gulf States' economies. Ethically, BP's clean up efforts were right; lawsuits and a negative public image undoubtedly contributed to the company's motivation to make ethical decisions.