How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Martin Your Own Question
Martin, Engineer
Category: General
Satisfied Customers: 4954
Experience:  i'm 41 and i never stopped studying and experimenting
Type Your Question Here...
Martin is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Corporate responsibility is a controversial issue that involves

This answer was rated:

Corporate responsibility is a controversial issue that involves many industries, companies, and ethical considerations. Consider one or more of the following examples, and comment on if and how you think the industry has an obligation to society.

McDonalds considering the overall health of society

Nike considering its responsibility for running sweatshops to produce its apparel

Oil companies for developing alternative energies

It can be only one

Corporate responsibility is a lot like John Searle "Chinese room".

The corporation is like such a room. In one of his lecture, John Searle once made allusion to an explication as to what is the Chinese room, made by someone (one of his student if i remember) that made the point that the room was alive and sentient. Searle then go on to say he can't get himself to believe that.

The question is not if the room sentient or not but if the Corporation as a system (sentient or not) should have the responsibility to apply ethical conduct. The corporation prime directive is to make money at all cost, this do not let place for any human compassion. If the Corporation is sentient it's surely not sentient with the same ethical goal that human have (the same way we don't have the same ethic for other humans and for our own cells). Human and corporation are just not on the same existence scale.

So, the ethical "law" should apply to those working in those corporation, not the corporation itself. Making those human personally responsible.

McDonalds as a corporation only have advantage to have is herd of customer healthy because it take money from them. It's not an ethical response but an economic prerogative of maximizing profit.

Nike as a corporation have no advantage to stop sweatshops. When it change things it's just to please the mass. The same way cells can stop someone to eat peanut butter if one is allergic. It's more taking care of an annoyance than doing it because it feel right.

Oil companies as a corporation have advantage to change because like bacteria in a petri dish, once the resource/food is gone, the organism die. So in this case it's a survival prerogative.
Martin and 25 other General Specialists are ready to help you