International Management: a case of BASF GERMANY ESTABLISHING PLANT IN SOUTH CAROLINA

Author: Iloka Benneth Chiemelie

Published: 22-September-2014

1.      Introduction

Business ethics is no longer a new topic of discussion in modern day business because it has been argued and debated by both researchers and business practitioners. Ethics in the business sense entails doing things in the right way, where right way is defined as a way in which the outcome is beneficial to the majority of the public (stakeholders). However, since the focus is on majority of the public, the question is whether neglecting the minority of the public in actuality is ethical. Thus, it creates a new realm of understanding which is focused on testing new ways that both the majority and minority can be catered for in the outcome of an ethical decision. As such, a number of theories have been developed in line with such understanding and such theories include The Discourse Ethics and Deontological Theories of Ethics.

The purpose of this paper is to apply both discourse and deontological ethics in the decision process of BASF – a German company- to open a new plant in Beaufort County, in the mist of providing the local communities with jobs and potentially poisoning the local tourist heritage. This research is basically divided into three, the first is the introduction which highlights what is to be done and how it will be done. The second is a review of literature, while the final section is a conclusion and recommendation on decision process for BASF.

1.1. Discussing deontology and discourse ethics: advantages and disadvantages

Majority of the theoretical discussions done on ethics in line with communication have focused more on studies that view deontological principles as governing professional communication practices (Churchill, 1983; Donaldson, 1985, 1999). In any case, if the importance of codes that drive the action and interactions of professionals are not disregarded, it becomes clear that communication ethics is also of great concern in terms of the way that its intersubjective relationships are constructed. Communication ethics brings to life the tensions existing among determinants that define the intersubjective contacts and constantly reform the meaning, frames, and forms of language that are used to define both its contexts and interlocution. The way subjects try to associate their own freedom action and personal interest in order to respect the identities and interests of other people is also related to the ethical framework (Donnelly, 2003).

In the communication context, ethics associated with current communication process should bear the following in mind: a) the modes that information are presented in the media, b) the way such presented information are disseminated and critical approaches, c) the intersubjective values that attempt to expose the views of each social actor that is involves in the communication action, and linking or not linking the social actor to other people; d) the communicative situation and relational contexts that are established when the subjects activate common language views with the intention of establishing mutual understanding, and e) personal interests that are used to guide not just the strategic actions that are viewed as contrasting with common goods, but also those that direct the discursive engagement between actors and their peer; which makes it necessary to view it as a central element of a communication interaction.

Apart from the above views, it is important to mention that ethics in the sense of communication is intended to evaluate the role that interest and language play in practical relationship existing between the subject and the approaches he/she should adopt in conditions under which the event is happening, through a form of discursive interaction in the public cope, in order to ensure that individuals reach an understanding on their personal interests and needs.

In The Theory of Communication Action (1987), Habermas attempted to a discourse ethics in order to show language use can be adopted in promoting mutual understanding and provisional agreement between people participating in practical discussion with a collective view on the assessment of common issues and private interest. For Habermas, ethics is an established link with personal horizon of interest, values, global views, and choices, but the moral view point adopted by participants in a discussion is used to make reference to the enlargement of the subject horizon in order to build the right room for conflict resolution and collective problem solving.

1.2. Theory of Discourse ethics

Habermas’s (1987) presented an outline of discourse ethics as a way of establishing moral deliberation as established in his Principle of Universalization, which is based on the idea that all parties affected by utterance can accept those consequences. Leeper (1996) viewed discourse ethics as an alternative to relativism in situational views of public relation. In his discussion which was based on earlier establishments by Habernas, he presented ideal speech situation and how claim of validity can be used to generates ethical codes for public relations practitioners. In conclusion, he made known that his works can be used evaluate and guide public relations views. In any case, it is important to understand that although providing an excellent background on the outcomes of discourse ethics, the work done by Leeper didn’t not address the procedural implications of the Habermas principles in full.

Meisenbach (2006) highlighted the advantage of the advantages of discourse ethics as being based on the principles established by Habermas, which are:

1.      It helps to identify an utterance for deliberation,

2.      It identifies all the subjects that will be affected by via implementation of such utterance,

3.      It helps to articulate utterance to all the affected subjects as identified,

4.      It debates the affected parties, consequences, and values of the utterance in a discursive way, and

5.      It helps to form judgment of validity and acceptability of the proposed utterance.

In essence, discourse ethics is centered on creating a common argument grounds that has the views, and desires of all subjects combine in the argument process, and establish an equal consensus that is mutually beneficial to all subjects. However, it has the disadvantage of not necessary representing the view of all affected subjects especially when the subjects are in large volume and employ only few people to represent their own grouped opinion.

1.3. Theory of deontology

Numerous philosophers have dropped the whole view of teleological agenda based on the argument that moral goodness is not related with generating pleasure, consequences, and/or happiness. In real definition, deontological theories are duty-based. This implies that according to deontologist, morality is all about fulfilling moral obligations or duties. However, duties in the deontological views are not always about giving absolute obedience to moral rules. Thus, it is required of subjects to do (or no to do) certain things in order to ensure that they uphold the rule of law. The extent that a given moral rule can be described as being right or wrong is determined by how independent its consequences are or by level of happiness or pleasure acquired by abiding or not abiding with that moral rule.

Thus, the advantage of deontlogy is that it creates the right moral ethics for understanding whether something is right (done in accordance with moral rule) or wrong (not done in accordance with moral rule). However, it has the disadvantage of a subject potentially creating pain for himself in order to create pleasure for another subject.

1.4. Decision for BASF based on the above theories

With the two theories already discussed, the decision process will be based on application of the two theories as:

1.5.Decision based on discourse ethics

The company should open the chemical plant in Beaufort Count, South Carolina. This is because the residents of the community as well as the South Carolinian government has welcomed BASF and they are willing to work with them in order to see the company successful in the region and create jobs for locals in the process. Thus, since discourse ethics entails discussing with involved stakeholders and coming out with decisions that are mutually beneficial to all stakeholders, it becomes clear that the decision to go ahead with building production plant in this area is right for BASF as they have been welcomed by both the government and residents, and they have needed raw materials available in this location.

1.6.Decision based on deontological view

The company should note go ahead with opening the production plant in Beaufort County. This is because deontological view is of the notion that decisions should be made in accordance with moral rules. Since there is an already established tourist heritage (Hilton Head), opening a company that will pollute the air and water and destroy this cultural tourist heritage is against more rule. Thus, if the company is to be deontological ethical, it should not open the production plant in Beaufort County.

1.7. Conclusion and recommendation

This research has shown that the presence of numerous ethical theories and frameworks is further complicating ethical practices, as different theories have different views (Doyle, 2010a, 2010b; Easley, 2004; Elfstorm, 2000). For instance, deontological ethics is against BASF opening the chemical plant in Beaufort Count because it is against moral rules, while discourse ethics is in support of opening the chemical plan in the same location because it is what the people want.

However, this research recommends that in order to b ethical, BASF should focus on what the people want and not the moral rules as it is the same people that created the moral rules and they can decide to change it for a greater course. Thus, it is conclude that BASF should go ahead with opening the production plant.

References

Boatright, J. R. (2000). „Globalisation and the ethics of business‟. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10 (1): 1-6.

Bondy, K., Matten, D. and Moon, J. (2004). „The adoption of voluntary codes of conduct in MNCs: a three-country comparative study‟. Business and Society Review, 109 (4): 449-477.

Carr, A. Z. (1968). „Is business bluffing ethical?‟. Harvard Business Review, January.

Carroll, A. B. (1987). „In search of the moral manager‟. Business Horizons, 30 (2): 7-15.

Churchill, Robert P. (1983). “Nuclear Arms as a Philosophical and Moral Issue.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 469 (September):46–57.

Ciulla, J. B., Martin, C. and Solomon, R.C. (2007). Honest Work: A Business Ethics Reader. Oxford University Press.

Cordeiro, W. P. (2003). „Should business ethics be different in transitional economies?‟. Journal of Business Ethics, Part 1, 47 (4): 327-35.

De George, R. T. (1999). Business Ethics. Upper Saddle, River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Donaldson, Thomas. (1985). “Nuclear Deterrence and Self Defense.” Ethics95 (3, April): 537–48.

Donaldson, Thomas. (1999). “Moral Minimums for Multinationals.” In Ethics and International Affairs: A Reader, ed. Joel H. Rosenthal. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Donnelly, Jack. (2003). Human Rights in Theory and Practice. 2nd ed. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.

Doyle, Thomas E. (2010a). “Moral Dilemmas: Acquiring Nuclear Weapons in the Second Nuclear Age.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Irvine.

Doyle, Thomas E. (2010b). “Reviving Nuclear Ethics: A Renewed Research Agenda for the Twenty-First Century.” Ethics and International Affairs 24(3, Fall): 287–308.

Duska, R. (2000). „Business ethics: oxymoron or good business?‟. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10 (1): 111-129.

Easley, Eric S. (2004). The War Over Perpetual Peace: An Exploration Into the History of a Foundational International Relations Text. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Elfstrom, Gerard. (2000). “The Ethical Responsibilities of Multinational Corporations: TheCase of North American Aluminum Companies in Jamaica.” In Ethics in International Affairs, ed. Andrew Valls. Lanham MD: Rowman & LittlefieldPublishers, Inc.

Fisher, C. and Lovell, A. (2003). Business Ethics and Values. Harlow, N.Y: FT Prentice Hall.

Friedman, M. (1970). „The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits‟. In Beauchamp, T. and Bowie, N. (ed.) (1988), Ethical Theory and Business, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.

Goodpaster, K. (2007). Conscience and Corporate Culture. UK: Blackwell Publishing.

HABERMAS, Jürgen (1987). The Theory of communicative action: vol.II Lifeworld and system: a critique of functionalism reason. Boston: Beacon, Press.

Levis, J. (2006). „Adoption of corporate social responsibility codes by multinational companies‟. Journal of Asia Economics, 17 (1): 50-55.

Maclagan, P. (1998). Management and Morality. London: Sage Publications.

O‟Higgins, E. (2003). „Part 2: global business means global responsibilities: research: global strategies - contradictions and consequences‟. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Effective Board Performance, 3 (3): 52-66.

Rest, J. R. and Narváez, D. (1994). Moral Development in the Professions: Psychology and Applied Ethics. Taylor & Francis.

Treviño, L. K. and Brown, M. E. (2004). „Managing to be ethical: debunking five business ethics myths‟. Academy of Management Executive, 18 (2): 69-81.

Verstraeten, J. (1998). „From business ethics to the vocation of business leaders to humanize the world of business‟. Business Ethics: A European Review, 7 (2): 111-124.

Werhane, P. H. and Freeman, R. E. (1999). „Business ethics: The state of the art‟. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1 (1): 1-16.

Windsor, D. (2004). „The development of international business norms‟. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14 (4): 729-754.