A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation
Stakeholder theory is a theory of organizational management and business ethics that addresses morals and values in managing an organization. In the traditional view of the firm, the shareholder view(the only one recognized in business law in most countries), the shareholders or stockholder are the owners of the company and the firm has a binding fiduciary duty to put their needs firt to increase profit for them.
In older input-output models of the corporation, the firm change the in put of investors, employess, and suppliers into salable outputs wich costumers buy, thereby returning some capital benefit to firm. By this models firm only address the need and desires of those four parties: investors, employees, suppliers, and customers.
The stakeholder view of strategy is an instrumental theory of the corporation, integrating both the resource-based view as well as the market-based view, and adding a socio-political level. This view of the firm is used to define the specific stakeholders of a corporation (the normative theory (Donaldson) of stakeholder identification) as well as examine the conditions under which these parties should be treated as stakeholders (the descriptive theory of stakeholder salience). These two questions make up the modern treatment of Stakeholder Theory.
Firm need to see about stakeholder importance cause the maximize profit of firm is support by all stakeholder in firm. Consider as most important share holder without consider as important stakeholder has a risk(stake) in performance of live firm isn’t all right. General of Firm isn’t personal possession, now firm possession by many share holder and its management command to professional. Some of Shareholder enclose their financial capital for market speculation and they aren’t care about policies of firm, this shareholder isn’t have importance to take care of firm persistence.
Importance of all side equalized by firm purpose, which one is applied Corporate Social Responsibility(CSR) become integral share of firm strategy. CSR take a various component of firm responsibility for stakeholder and firm responsibility to increase the profit. For example car producer who try to render efficient fuel using, friendly of environment, decrease global warning effect, and beneficial for consumer. In financial crisis, society realize this product they need at now efficient and friendly of environment. This statement can be increase the selling and profit, high profitabilities can be increase prosperity firm employee.
Kamis, 19 November 2009
Kamis, 29 Oktober 2009
THE UTILITARIAN THEORY
Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility. Its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all people. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. Utilitarianism is often described by the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number of people", and is also known as “ the greatest happiness principle”. Utility the good to be maximized has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure, although preference utilitarians define it as the satisfaction of preferences. It may be described as a life stance with happiness or pleasure being of ultimate importance.
The simplest version of utilitarian moral theory applies to particular actions and takes an action to be morally right if only it produces the highest utility of any available alternative action. Utility is traditionally taken to be pleasure and the absence of pain. So an action may be considered right if it produces the greatest amount of pleasure and the least pain of any available alternative action. This normative theory of right action is based on the theory of value that takes happiness conceived of as pleasure and the absence of pain to be the only things of intrinsic value.
The utilitarian theory places no privileged status on the pleasure of the actor or on the immediate, as opposed to the long term, effects of the action. An actions utility is the net amount of pleasure or pain that is experienced by all parties affected over the long run. If we could measure pleasure and pain, we would caluculate the utility of an action by adding up all of the pleasure produced and subtracting from that any pain that might also be produced by the action.
When we speak of utility as pleasure and the absence of pain, we need to take "pleasure" and "pain" in the broadest sense possible. There are social, intellectual and aesthetic pleasures to consider as well as sensual pleasures. Recognizing this is important to answering what Mill calls the "doctrine of swine" objection to Utilitarianism. This objection takes the utilitarian doctrine to be unfit for humans because it recognizes no higher purpose to life than the mere pursuit of pleasure. It is, according to the objection, a view of the good that is fit only for swine. Mill responds that it is the person who raises this objection that portrays human nature in a degrading light, not the utilitarian theory of right action. People are capable of pleasures beyond mere sensual indulgences and the utilitarian theory concerns these as well. Mill argued that social and intellectual pleasures are of an intrinsically higher quality than sensual pleasure.
We find a more significant objection to Utilitarian moral theory in the following sort of case. Consider Bob, who goes to the doctor for a check up. His doctor finds that Bob is in perfect health. And his doctor also finds that Bob is biologically compatible with six other patients. He has who are all dieing various of organ failure. Let us assume that if Bob lives out his days he will live a typically good life, one that is pleasant to Bob and also brings happiness to his friends and family, but we will assume that.
Bob will not discover a cure for AIDs or bring about world peace. And let us make similar assumptions about the six people suffering from organ failure. According to simple act utilitarianism, it looks like the right thing for Bob’s doctor to do is to kill Bob and harvest his organs for the benefit of the six patients who will otherwise die. But intuitively, this would be quite wrong. Act utilitarianism gets the wrong result in this sort of case. This case seems to provide a clear counter example to simple act utilitarianism. Can the utilitarian view be modified to avoid this sort of counter example.
One move open to the utilitarian is to evaluate rules for acting rather than individual actions. A version of rule utilitarianism might say that the right action is the action that follows the rule which in general, will produce the highest utility. A rule that tells doctors to kill their patients when others require their organs would not have very high utility in general. People would avoid their doctors and illness would go untreated were such a rule in effect. Rather, the rule that doctors should do no harm to their patients would have much higher utility in general. So the move to rule utilitarianism seems to avoid the difficulty we found with act utilitarianism or at least it seems to when we consider just these two rules.
But here is a rule that would have even higher utility than the rule that doctors should never harm their patients. Doctors should never harm their patients except when doing so would maximize utility. Now suppose that doctors ordinarily refrain from harming their patients and as a result people trust their doctors. But in Bob’s case, his doctor realizes that she can maximize utility by killing Bob and distributing his organs. She can do this in a way that no one will ever discover, so her harming Bob in this special case will not undermine people’s faith in the medical system. The possibility of rules with "except when utility is maximized" clauses renders rule utilitarianism vulnerable to the same kinds of counter examples we find for act utilitarianism. In effect, rule utilitarianism collapses back into act utilitarianism.
In order to deal with the original problem, the rule utilitarian must find a principled way to exclude certain sorts of utility maximizing rules. I won’t pursue this matter on behalf of the utilitarian. Rather, I want to consider further just how simple act utilitarianism goes wrong in Bob’s case. Utilitarian considerations of good consequences seem to leave out something that is ethically important. Specifically, in this case it leaves out a proper regard for Bob as person with a will of his own. This problem case of utilitarian moral theory seems to point towards the need for a non-consequentialist ethics of respect for persons.
Utilitarianism seems to fall short in failing to afford respect for persons. I find a compelling reason here for rejecting utilitarianism as a complete moral theory. But this is not to deny that producing happiness is important from an ethical point of view. One can take the utilitarian theory to capture something that is important about acting well even while taking respect for persons to override utilitarian reasons in cases like Bob’s where there is a conflict.
The other example: operate factories wich caused the environment polluted. Place where the factories operated is strategic, the factories easy to get the raw materials and to transferred good materials for the client. The factories will choose that place although must to pay the subsidized environment for the society. Operated in that place will give the factories the big profit although must paid the subsidized environment, that cost isn’t too much for the factories, compared the profit will they obtains. The utilitarian theory wich provides that we should resolve ethical dilemmas by one of solution as subsidized of environment for society who lives side the factories or the other solutions. There will always be a few disgruntled souls in every ethical dilemma solution, so we just do the most good that we can.
Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility. Its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all people. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. Utilitarianism is often described by the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number of people", and is also known as “ the greatest happiness principle”. Utility the good to be maximized has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure, although preference utilitarians define it as the satisfaction of preferences. It may be described as a life stance with happiness or pleasure being of ultimate importance.
The simplest version of utilitarian moral theory applies to particular actions and takes an action to be morally right if only it produces the highest utility of any available alternative action. Utility is traditionally taken to be pleasure and the absence of pain. So an action may be considered right if it produces the greatest amount of pleasure and the least pain of any available alternative action. This normative theory of right action is based on the theory of value that takes happiness conceived of as pleasure and the absence of pain to be the only things of intrinsic value.
The utilitarian theory places no privileged status on the pleasure of the actor or on the immediate, as opposed to the long term, effects of the action. An actions utility is the net amount of pleasure or pain that is experienced by all parties affected over the long run. If we could measure pleasure and pain, we would caluculate the utility of an action by adding up all of the pleasure produced and subtracting from that any pain that might also be produced by the action.
When we speak of utility as pleasure and the absence of pain, we need to take "pleasure" and "pain" in the broadest sense possible. There are social, intellectual and aesthetic pleasures to consider as well as sensual pleasures. Recognizing this is important to answering what Mill calls the "doctrine of swine" objection to Utilitarianism. This objection takes the utilitarian doctrine to be unfit for humans because it recognizes no higher purpose to life than the mere pursuit of pleasure. It is, according to the objection, a view of the good that is fit only for swine. Mill responds that it is the person who raises this objection that portrays human nature in a degrading light, not the utilitarian theory of right action. People are capable of pleasures beyond mere sensual indulgences and the utilitarian theory concerns these as well. Mill argued that social and intellectual pleasures are of an intrinsically higher quality than sensual pleasure.
We find a more significant objection to Utilitarian moral theory in the following sort of case. Consider Bob, who goes to the doctor for a check up. His doctor finds that Bob is in perfect health. And his doctor also finds that Bob is biologically compatible with six other patients. He has who are all dieing various of organ failure. Let us assume that if Bob lives out his days he will live a typically good life, one that is pleasant to Bob and also brings happiness to his friends and family, but we will assume that.
Bob will not discover a cure for AIDs or bring about world peace. And let us make similar assumptions about the six people suffering from organ failure. According to simple act utilitarianism, it looks like the right thing for Bob’s doctor to do is to kill Bob and harvest his organs for the benefit of the six patients who will otherwise die. But intuitively, this would be quite wrong. Act utilitarianism gets the wrong result in this sort of case. This case seems to provide a clear counter example to simple act utilitarianism. Can the utilitarian view be modified to avoid this sort of counter example.
One move open to the utilitarian is to evaluate rules for acting rather than individual actions. A version of rule utilitarianism might say that the right action is the action that follows the rule which in general, will produce the highest utility. A rule that tells doctors to kill their patients when others require their organs would not have very high utility in general. People would avoid their doctors and illness would go untreated were such a rule in effect. Rather, the rule that doctors should do no harm to their patients would have much higher utility in general. So the move to rule utilitarianism seems to avoid the difficulty we found with act utilitarianism or at least it seems to when we consider just these two rules.
But here is a rule that would have even higher utility than the rule that doctors should never harm their patients. Doctors should never harm their patients except when doing so would maximize utility. Now suppose that doctors ordinarily refrain from harming their patients and as a result people trust their doctors. But in Bob’s case, his doctor realizes that she can maximize utility by killing Bob and distributing his organs. She can do this in a way that no one will ever discover, so her harming Bob in this special case will not undermine people’s faith in the medical system. The possibility of rules with "except when utility is maximized" clauses renders rule utilitarianism vulnerable to the same kinds of counter examples we find for act utilitarianism. In effect, rule utilitarianism collapses back into act utilitarianism.
In order to deal with the original problem, the rule utilitarian must find a principled way to exclude certain sorts of utility maximizing rules. I won’t pursue this matter on behalf of the utilitarian. Rather, I want to consider further just how simple act utilitarianism goes wrong in Bob’s case. Utilitarian considerations of good consequences seem to leave out something that is ethically important. Specifically, in this case it leaves out a proper regard for Bob as person with a will of his own. This problem case of utilitarian moral theory seems to point towards the need for a non-consequentialist ethics of respect for persons.
Utilitarianism seems to fall short in failing to afford respect for persons. I find a compelling reason here for rejecting utilitarianism as a complete moral theory. But this is not to deny that producing happiness is important from an ethical point of view. One can take the utilitarian theory to capture something that is important about acting well even while taking respect for persons to override utilitarian reasons in cases like Bob’s where there is a conflict.
The other example: operate factories wich caused the environment polluted. Place where the factories operated is strategic, the factories easy to get the raw materials and to transferred good materials for the client. The factories will choose that place although must to pay the subsidized environment for the society. Operated in that place will give the factories the big profit although must paid the subsidized environment, that cost isn’t too much for the factories, compared the profit will they obtains. The utilitarian theory wich provides that we should resolve ethical dilemmas by one of solution as subsidized of environment for society who lives side the factories or the other solutions. There will always be a few disgruntled souls in every ethical dilemma solution, so we just do the most good that we can.
Rabu, 28 Oktober 2009
GOVERNOR PREPARED FUND BUILDER THE VILLAGE
Governor aceh prepared the fund “peumakmu gampong” in amount of Rp 150 million each village for operational and development theirs village. This fund for speeds up process the village stand alone and didn’t allow to pay the chairman’s of village(keuchik). By aid this fund governor hope development of village run quickly and used that fund exactly, until efforts speeds up process the village stand alone look evident and have had a chance to benefit all of people in the country.
Fund the village builder the fiscal year of 2008 in the amount of Rp 32 billions were failed launched(in north aceh). Many side demanded because of bureaucracy regent north aceh is very complicated. This failure was caused by process of bureaucracy and administration put by government of north aceh was complicated. As a result liquefaction of fund be late, this condition make some village towed implementing development plan theirs village. This facts showed to populace that government of north aceh isn’t professional.
In the middle year of 2008 government north aceh ask for geuchik to suggest estimate develop the village. While they suggested the proposal that proposal return by reason there are change administration in process liquefaction estimate. This problems happen about five times until the estimate failed launched. Preferable government of north aceh work as well for importance million souls in north aceh. This condition don’t till repeatable in the future, regent north aceh Ilyas A Hamid as soon as evaluated his subordinates in order to reached viewtarget and afford work extra for importance populace.
Governor aceh prepared the fund “peumakmu gampong” in amount of Rp 150 million each village for operational and development theirs village. This fund for speeds up process the village stand alone and didn’t allow to pay the chairman’s of village(keuchik). By aid this fund governor hope development of village run quickly and used that fund exactly, until efforts speeds up process the village stand alone look evident and have had a chance to benefit all of people in the country.
Fund the village builder the fiscal year of 2008 in the amount of Rp 32 billions were failed launched(in north aceh). Many side demanded because of bureaucracy regent north aceh is very complicated. This failure was caused by process of bureaucracy and administration put by government of north aceh was complicated. As a result liquefaction of fund be late, this condition make some village towed implementing development plan theirs village. This facts showed to populace that government of north aceh isn’t professional.
In the middle year of 2008 government north aceh ask for geuchik to suggest estimate develop the village. While they suggested the proposal that proposal return by reason there are change administration in process liquefaction estimate. This problems happen about five times until the estimate failed launched. Preferable government of north aceh work as well for importance million souls in north aceh. This condition don’t till repeatable in the future, regent north aceh Ilyas A Hamid as soon as evaluated his subordinates in order to reached viewtarget and afford work extra for importance populace.
Jumat, 16 Oktober 2009
Maria Shriver Breaking Cell Phone Law
California first lady Maria Shriver says she's sorry for breaking a state law that requires drivers to use hands-free devices while talking on cell phones. Maria Shriver break a state law made by her husband. Regulation is certain must be obedient by all citizen of a country are government, entrepreneur, civil, and masses. Regulation must be upright in other to existence the citizen of a country restored for example as a traffic. Here we must implemented regulation as well. Like regulation don’t use cell phone while driving. This regulation made to prevent the accident.
I’m proud of california governor because he warn his wife immediately after found out holding a phone to her ear while she was behind the wheel. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger be grateful for web site TMZ.com presented violation has done by his wife. Although TMZ.com presented violation has done by Maria Shriver three times, she isn’t comment on this incident. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as soon as response publication public. That prompted Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to write about it on Twitter, where he said "there's going to be swift action." Aaron Mc Lear, spokesman Schwarzenegger said: “governor will ask for his wife to not phone while driving”. I’m very proud of California governor the law prevail under his power prevail for all citizen of a country although his wife.
California first lady Maria Shriver says she's sorry for breaking a state law that requires drivers to use hands-free devices while talking on cell phones. Maria Shriver break a state law made by her husband. Regulation is certain must be obedient by all citizen of a country are government, entrepreneur, civil, and masses. Regulation must be upright in other to existence the citizen of a country restored for example as a traffic. Here we must implemented regulation as well. Like regulation don’t use cell phone while driving. This regulation made to prevent the accident.
I’m proud of california governor because he warn his wife immediately after found out holding a phone to her ear while she was behind the wheel. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger be grateful for web site TMZ.com presented violation has done by his wife. Although TMZ.com presented violation has done by Maria Shriver three times, she isn’t comment on this incident. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as soon as response publication public. That prompted Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to write about it on Twitter, where he said "there's going to be swift action." Aaron Mc Lear, spokesman Schwarzenegger said: “governor will ask for his wife to not phone while driving”. I’m very proud of California governor the law prevail under his power prevail for all citizen of a country although his wife.
Kamis, 15 Oktober 2009
Statement of Qory Sandioriva about she took off her hood
Qory Sandioriva said she took off her hood to follow Indonesian princess permissible by government of NAD. This statement make a lot of society NAD disappointed to her. NAD is one of province in Indonesia applied syariah Islam and this statement isn’t reflection a princess from NAD. Qory ought to elegance exhibit an aceh princess by kept aurat. Isn’t an honor, victory obtain by a change faith of value and not appropriate with syariah Islam prevail in NAD.
I’m disagree with Qory’s statement: “hair is certain beauty and I’m pround to beauty”. This statement make disappointed a lot of moslem special in NAD. Hair is beauty a gift from Allah and we must be grateful to Allah for what Allah gift us by execute his command and left for his prohibition by close aurat. Hair is crown precious for moslem gift from Allah, we must take good care not for media.
Hood is identity a moslem, one proof of obedience us for our religion Islam. To close aurat is important and obligation for moslem, qory is a pity she has sacrifice a half her faith for Allah.
I hope qory to realizes her mistake immediately………… amin ya rabbal alamin………..
Qory Sandioriva said she took off her hood to follow Indonesian princess permissible by government of NAD. This statement make a lot of society NAD disappointed to her. NAD is one of province in Indonesia applied syariah Islam and this statement isn’t reflection a princess from NAD. Qory ought to elegance exhibit an aceh princess by kept aurat. Isn’t an honor, victory obtain by a change faith of value and not appropriate with syariah Islam prevail in NAD.
I’m disagree with Qory’s statement: “hair is certain beauty and I’m pround to beauty”. This statement make disappointed a lot of moslem special in NAD. Hair is beauty a gift from Allah and we must be grateful to Allah for what Allah gift us by execute his command and left for his prohibition by close aurat. Hair is crown precious for moslem gift from Allah, we must take good care not for media.
Hood is identity a moslem, one proof of obedience us for our religion Islam. To close aurat is important and obligation for moslem, qory is a pity she has sacrifice a half her faith for Allah.
I hope qory to realizes her mistake immediately………… amin ya rabbal alamin………..
How Business Ethics Applied in our Society
Business ethics is a form of applied ethics that examines ethical rules and principles within a commercial context; the various moral or ethical problems that can arise in a business setting, and any special duties or obligations that apply to persons who are engaged in commerce. Generally speaking, business ethics is a normative discipline, whereby particular ethical standards are assumed and then applied. It makes specific judgements about what is right or wrong, which is to say, it makes claims about what ought to be done or what ought not to be done. While there are some exceptions, business ethics are usually less concerned with the foundations of ethics, or with justifying the most basic ethical principles, and are more concerned with practical problems and applications, and any specific duties that might apply to business relationships.
Business ethics divisible in two parts;
• Normative ethics: Concerned with supplying and justifying a coherent moral system of thinking and judging. Normative ethics seeks to uncover, develop, and justify basic moral principles that are intended to guide behavior, actions, and decisions.
R. DeGeorge, Business Ethics, 5th ed. (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 2002)
• Descriptive ethics: Is concerned with describing, characterizing, and studying the morality of a people, a culture, or a society. It also compares and contrasts different moral codes, systems, practices, beliefs, and values.
R. A. Buchholtz and S. B. Rosenthal, Business Ethics (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1998).
Business ethics aren't identical to the philosophy of business, the branch of philosophy that deals with the philosophical, political, and ethical underpinnings of business and economics. Business ethics operates on the premise, for example, that the ethical operation of a private business is possible -- those who dispute that premise, such as libertarian socialists, (who contend that "business ethics" is an oxymoron) do so by definition outside of the domain of business ethics proper.
Business ethics is also related to political economy, which is economic analysis from political and historical perspectives. Political economy deals with the distributive consequences of economic actions. It asks who gains and who loses from economic activity, and is the resultant distribution fair or just, which are central ethical issues.
Some society at now don’t know about buniss ethics, more of them think the buniss without need the ethics. They think ethics just prevail in society who have sturdy culture or region for individual. In fact ethics prevail and applied in their’s society. How about company environment? Company is an organization with explicit structure, there are implicated some interaction personal and instution conflict often happen in management, personal or in each team in the company. Ethics need to control for importance of company. Many company put the ethics aside to reached profit many times over.
Example: case mud of Lapindo, many hectare land are muddy until society must left their house. May be here are substance deliberate to increase the profit without think importance of society. The other example case Buyat of gulf evoked befouled around environment, may be the popular case is about Marsinah a laborer who struggle his rights but tragic event yank out his soul.
All of this problems happen because ethics not applied in business. Etichs contain appreciation, respecting, justify for morality and social to man and world. Importance company and society must be balanced, if company not applied ethics in business may be they must expend much fee to solve the problems and this inflicted a financial loss for company.
Business ethics is a form of applied ethics that examines ethical rules and principles within a commercial context; the various moral or ethical problems that can arise in a business setting, and any special duties or obligations that apply to persons who are engaged in commerce. Generally speaking, business ethics is a normative discipline, whereby particular ethical standards are assumed and then applied. It makes specific judgements about what is right or wrong, which is to say, it makes claims about what ought to be done or what ought not to be done. While there are some exceptions, business ethics are usually less concerned with the foundations of ethics, or with justifying the most basic ethical principles, and are more concerned with practical problems and applications, and any specific duties that might apply to business relationships.
Business ethics divisible in two parts;
• Normative ethics: Concerned with supplying and justifying a coherent moral system of thinking and judging. Normative ethics seeks to uncover, develop, and justify basic moral principles that are intended to guide behavior, actions, and decisions.
R. DeGeorge, Business Ethics, 5th ed. (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 2002)
• Descriptive ethics: Is concerned with describing, characterizing, and studying the morality of a people, a culture, or a society. It also compares and contrasts different moral codes, systems, practices, beliefs, and values.
R. A. Buchholtz and S. B. Rosenthal, Business Ethics (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1998).
Business ethics aren't identical to the philosophy of business, the branch of philosophy that deals with the philosophical, political, and ethical underpinnings of business and economics. Business ethics operates on the premise, for example, that the ethical operation of a private business is possible -- those who dispute that premise, such as libertarian socialists, (who contend that "business ethics" is an oxymoron) do so by definition outside of the domain of business ethics proper.
Business ethics is also related to political economy, which is economic analysis from political and historical perspectives. Political economy deals with the distributive consequences of economic actions. It asks who gains and who loses from economic activity, and is the resultant distribution fair or just, which are central ethical issues.
Some society at now don’t know about buniss ethics, more of them think the buniss without need the ethics. They think ethics just prevail in society who have sturdy culture or region for individual. In fact ethics prevail and applied in their’s society. How about company environment? Company is an organization with explicit structure, there are implicated some interaction personal and instution conflict often happen in management, personal or in each team in the company. Ethics need to control for importance of company. Many company put the ethics aside to reached profit many times over.
Example: case mud of Lapindo, many hectare land are muddy until society must left their house. May be here are substance deliberate to increase the profit without think importance of society. The other example case Buyat of gulf evoked befouled around environment, may be the popular case is about Marsinah a laborer who struggle his rights but tragic event yank out his soul.
All of this problems happen because ethics not applied in business. Etichs contain appreciation, respecting, justify for morality and social to man and world. Importance company and society must be balanced, if company not applied ethics in business may be they must expend much fee to solve the problems and this inflicted a financial loss for company.
Langganan:
Komentar (Atom)