ACCG8048 Ethics Theory Essay Sample
One essay of 1500 words, excluding references. Your essay should be double-spaced, 12-point font in a professional font (Times New Roman, Arial, etc.). Submissions may be up to 10% over the word limit, but there will be a 5% penalty of marks for up to each 5% beyond that limit. e.g. Exceeding word limit by 11% to 15% = 1.5-mark penalty; exceeding word limit by 16 to 20% = 3-mark penalty. And so on. Your answer should be a single essay response following an essay structure (introduction, body conclusion) and organised into paragraphs. Each question also provides a series of issues you must address, in order, in writing your essay. Subheadings should also be used to clearly indicate each section of your essay. The marking rubric (provided separately) allocates marks for each of these tasks.
As set out in the rubric, distinction and high distinction marks for core categories require appropriate research, which includes both the quality and quantity of your sources. As a guide, you should refer to two to five additional sources in total and at least half should come from peer-reviewed academic journals. Useful starting points for identifying appropriate sources are the recommended readings for each topic, Macquarie University library online search function and Google Scholar.
After pledging to pay a living wage to all workers in its supply chain, Unilever has been criticised for weakening this pledge admidst increasing shareholders pressure to focus on profits. Drawing especially on Kantian ethics (Topic 4) and labour outsourcing ethics (Topic 2) critically assess the ethics of Unilever’s decision. You should organise your answer in essay form – as a single written response – but address the following stages in order, using subheadings to distinguish each section (paragraph lengths are recommended / approximate):
1. Introduce your essay: Explain the purpose of your essay and how your essay will achieve this purpose (1 short paragraph).
2. Explain theory steps: Explain the main steps a Kantian would follow to decide if a company is treating workers in its supply chain ethically (1 paragraph).
3. Explain reasons: Explain the reasons a Kantian would provide for each of these steps.
4. Apply ethics theory: Use the steps you outlined in point 2 above to assess to what extent, or in what respects, Unilever’s decision in this case is ethical (2-3 paragraphs).
5. Critically analyse: State whether you agree with this Kantian analysis with reference to relevant criticisms of, or alternative theories to, Kantian ethics (1-2 paragraphs).
6. Conclude your essay: Summarise your main argument (1 short paragraph).
Solution
Introduction
The paper critically assesses Unilever's consideration to breach a commitment to paying a living wage as a result of pressure exerted by shareholders. Making an application of the theories in the realm of Kantian ethics and labour outsourcing ethics, the essay determines whether the actions of Unilever are ethical. The essay also goes on to outline the major steps in Kantian ethics, applying these on Unilever, and providing a critical ethical analysis. It would also involve evaluations of whether the decision on the part of Unilever respects workers' rights and whether shareholder interest can be ethically placed above the welfare of workers.
Kantian Ethics and Ethical Decision-Making
Kantian ethics, grounded in deontological theory, places the categorical imperative at the center of moral decision-making. The categorical imperative demands that all actions be constrained by universal laws that consider the dignity and inherent worth of all people (Julmi, 2023). On matters involving corporate decision-making, for instance, a Kantian first considers whether the actions taken by a corporation maintain the dignity of all parties concerned, above all, of the workers themselves (Lin, 2024, p. 4). This is particularly applicable to the ethics of a supply chain, where decisions directly influence the well-being, safety, and livelihood of laborers. Firms are supposed to ensure that their labour practices respect the dignity of the personnel through decent wages and humane working conditions.
That is, the second step for university assignment help is universalization-questions whether a company's action could be willed to be accepted universally without leading to harmful effects. If all companies weakened wage commitments under pressure from shareholders, this might lead to rampant exploitation of workers and violation of ethical labor standards internationally. So, the action must pass the test of being universally acceptable.
The Kantian would proceed and weigh whether business is treating laborers as ends unto themselves, which gives their inherent worth as persons due respect, or merely means toward some greater end, namely profit. Arguably from the Kantian view, when the employees are being treated as a means toward an end-e.g., profit maximization-such practice violates his ethics, which treats all human persons with dignity and not means to simply reach some corporate objective (Ulbricht, 2023). This final step underlines the need to give priority to ethical obligations toward workers in the face of shareholder imperatives that demand more profitability.
Justifications for Each Step in Kantian Ethics
Kantian ethics' first step, in the respect of human dignity, emanates from its view that all human beings possess inherent dignity. A Kantian would expressively say that Unilever ought to give respect to, and be fair to, workers by paying decent compensatory wages for their labors (Unilever PLC, 2021). While doing this, a living wage is not faithfully a matter of money, but more so of morality that indeed makes them meet the requirements for life and retain their dignity. b.
Universalizability: as Kant himself believes, ethical actions need to be applicable to all situations in which similar circumstances occur. For instance, in the case of Unilever, decisions to lessen focus on paying wages due to pressure by the shareholders could not be universalized without there being a harmful precedence where collective wage reduction worsens poverty and exploitation of workers by companies is perpetuated (Davies, 2024). In this respect, there would be a moral contradiction insofar as, then such an act will have caused violations of the notion of equality and equal respect for other human beings. Thirdly, the treatment of individuals as ends unto themselves is primarily the concern of not making workers solely useful for generating profit. A Kantian would say that by making the profit motive greater than the welfare of the workers, such practice treats the workers as little more than means to an end of financial gain, well outside the boundaries of this framework. Ethical decision-making should hold the end of the workers' wellbeing in high regard rather than some means toward satiating the interests of the shareholders (Duvenhage, 2024).
Application of Kantian Ethics to Unilever’s Decision
Drawing on Kantian ethics to explain Unilever, the first issue is the one in which the actions of Unilever respect the dignity of workers. Kantian ethics make it clear that all people possess inherent dignity and must be accorded fair treatment, together with a decent wage to match their work. As its commitment to a living wage has weakened, Unilever runs the risk of violating this ethical principle. These wages are supposed to make sure that workers in its supply chain, particularly from developing countries, could attain basic needs. The Kantian theory posits that if this level of wage is not attained, certainly, the dignity of those workers will be devalued by treating them as disposable parts of the company's profitability strategy. Thus, the decision of Unilever can be regarded as unethical because it did not respect workers' basic rights to a decent life (Davies, 2024).
The second Kantian ethics test is universalizability, which considers that if applied universally, the choice would still be morally defendable. If all companies considered shareholders' profit to be more important than workers' wages, the consequences would result in large-scale worker exploitation, especially in outsourced labor markets with low wages (Duvenhage, 2024). These actions, observed on a generalized level, propagate inequality and injustice. This would create a moral contradiction since such practice would not be in line with the ethical principle treating all people equally. Hence, Unilever's decision couldn't be universalized without serious consequences in ethical aspects.
Finally, Kantian ethics emphasizes that always, people ought to be treated as ends in themselves rather than being used as means toward other ends. The fact that Unilever would weaken its pledge for whatever reason because of pressure from shareholders shows that it is willing to sacrifice these workers at the altar of profit-making. In treating workers this way, Unilever denies them the status of being valuable human beings but means to financial ends. In this, Kantian ethics would justify this instrumentalization of workers as essentially being unethical because individuals have been reduced to means to ends in the maximization of profit rather than being treated with inherent dignity and worth.
Critical Analysis of Kantian Ethics and Alternative Theories
On the one hand, Kantian ethics can provide a good basis from which a critique of Unilever's decision can be launched. It also displays some quite glaring limitations because of its inflexibility: Kantian ethics, formulated as it is upon universal moral laws and the categorical imperative, can hardly be seen fitting into the dilemmas created by corporate decisions. Companies like Unilever must navigate several often-competing interests within aggressive, profit-driven markets when seeking to balance shareholders, employees, and other stakeholders. The categorical imperative-the call to adhere to a set of universal principles-can perhaps prove too rigid for such contexts. For example, it is highly pertinent that worker dignity should be respected. However, profitability is an important strength a company must retain in order to keep its competitive edge and, hence, to be able to continue creating jobs. Therefore, what the Kantian would propose will no doubt end up over-simplifying the dilemmas corporations have to go through while weighing different, if not conflicting, responsibilities.
Utilitarianism is a somewhat more flexible ethical theory. Where Kantian ethics rely on the intrinsic rightness or wrongness of an action, itself, utilitarianism bases judgments on the outcomes of actions. A utilitarian would consider Unilever's decision by fleshing out the overall benefits and harms that resulted from its choice. The utilitarian may justify Unilever's decision as ethical if the focus on profits is something that garners long-term benefits for a larger pool of stakeholders-shareholders, employees, and even customers-either through reinvestments or through general economic growth. But utilitarianism runs its own risks, particularly when it comes to justifying worker exploitation in the name of the greater good. In this regard, a utilitarian would accept the decision in case the perceived general benefit outweighs harm done to workers relying on decent wages. The decision may, therefore, have huge ethical-related implications.
Another relevant framework is labour outsourcing ethics. This perspective places particular emphasis on a firm's responsibility to ensure that workers producing their goods or services, especially in countries with much weaker labor protections, can have adequate treatment. In concert with Kantian thinking, labour outsourcing ethics streams the idea that the basic rights of a worker, such as the right to a living wage, cannot be sacrificed on the altar of profit. Indeed, even in competitive markets, businesses are also ethically bound to advance the rights and quality of life of all sets of employees down the line of its supply chain. Thus, Unilever's decision to weaken its living wage pledge remains ethically deficient, as it sacrifices the rights of workers at the altar of financial gain.
Conclusion
In light of Kantian ethics, Unilever's decision to weaken its living wage pledge is, for the greater part, unethical. The action of the company in this respect tends to show no respect for the inherent dignity of the workers who are in developing countries, since they compromise the basic need for decent compensation. The decision is also not the kind that can be universally accepted, since it could imply tighter exploitation if applied by other firms. Unilever, too, instrumentalizes workers by prioritizing profits over their livelihood and safety prima facie; this constitutes a violation of a principal Kantian ethics tenet. While utilitarianism might afford leeway by justifying the move on greater economic good grounds, that should not abrogate the immediate ethical duty to protect one's rights as a worker. This case is an ethical dilemma in the real sense between shareholder interest and the responsibility of ensuring decent labor standards in an open economy.
References
Davies, R. (2024, April 19). Unilever to scale back environmental and social pledges. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/apr/19/unilever-to-scale-back-environmental-and-social-pledges
Dion, M. (2019). Are ethical theories relevant for ethical leadership? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33(1), 4–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731211193098
Duvenhage, P. N. J. (2024). Reflections on Habermas’s discourse ethics. Verbum et Ecclesia, 45(1). https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v45i1.3009
Julmi, C. (2023). Analysis and Intuition Effectiveness in Moral Problems. Journal of Business Ethics, 191(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05407-y
Lin, S. (2024). A synthesis of Kantian ethics and Rousseauvian General Will in justifying the moral ground of political laws. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03132-z
Ulbricht, S. (2023). A Kantian response to the Gamer’s Dilemma. Ethics and Information Technology, 25(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-023-09710-0
Unilever PLC. (2021, April 20). A living wage. Unilever; Unilever PLC. https://www.unilever.com/sustainability/livelihoods/a-living-wage/
Fill the form to continue reading
Would you like to schedule a callback?
Send us a message and we will get back to you
Highlights
Earn While You Learn With Us
Confidentiality Agreement
Money Back Guarantee
Live Expert Sessions
550+ Ph.D Experts
21 Step Quality Check
100% Quality
24*7 Live Help
On Time Delivery
Plagiarism-Free
81 Isla Avenue Glenroy, Mel, VIC, 3046 AU
