In a time of heightened universal crisis and thus requisite for companies to make more ethical decisions, what could possibly prevent companies from doing so?
If faced with the choice between a profitable decision that could potentially harm a large amount of people (who are not directly related to the company’s interests) versus a decision that is ethical, what would prod the CEO to make the ethical decision? For one thing, most CEOs who have gotten to that position have gotten there through their efficacy in making profit for the company – they are ingrained with what is profitable for them. Long term global disasters are events that brings everyone down, while CEOs tend to think towards surpassing their own opponents. If everyone were disadvantaged, at least the company stays afloat. In a way, our current environment/resource situation still allows companies to feed their objective. It is also a situation that allows for a remedy. By the time such a situation no longer allows companies to act ‘selfishly’, it’ll be too late to reverse the effects.
Another impedement company leaders face is the lack of encouragement. If they make an ethical decision, in this tumulous time and age, their decision may not only be taken for granted, but also set their company back in the competition. As much as the CEOs would like to make a conscience decision, they have their stock-holders and board members to think of. Though the media covers a great deal of the shenanigans that corporations incorporate, the gamble is still largely tipped in favor of the secrecy of the board room.
A remedy to this attitude may be encouragement in the form of consumerism. As in recent years conscience consumers have begun to be increasingly interested in green products, so companies that advertise their ethic choices may find an increase in revenue. However, many less savory tactics produce cheaper products, and in this age of rising prices, this form encouragement often gives way to a consumer’s choice in more affordable products.
Last of all, the general enemity that NGOs, workers associations, certain fringe political groups and the common people have towards large corporations and their rich leadership may create a psychologically defensive attitude in the leadership. The corporations rarely make decisions based on the benefit of the consumers or the general public, but what it can reap from such policies (increased consumer loyalism…etc). If companies can not agree to work together towards more ethical policies, needless to say they shall collectively work competitively with less ethical but in the short term effective measures that would help each to get ahead of the other. Those who do not employ this method will suffer possible demise.
The job that NGOs can therefore employ is not that of ‘us-against-you’ – which may only provoke defensiveness and perhaps unwilling, temporary cooperation – but research into methods in which company can earn more of a profit through ethical decisions, agree to down-size (unlikely), be able to work together employing ethical decisions. This requires that NGOs be able to enlist the help of professionals trained in the skills of environmentally friendly industries and equipment (technology and science) and savoir-faire (tact/diplomacy).
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
