Business作业代写范例-商业道德责任。本文是一篇留学生商务管理作业代写参考，主要内容是讲述道德责任是指确保理性人在知情和故意的情况下所做的行为不会对他人造成伤害的自愿责任。作业引用Wilmot对比了这样一种理论，即从商业角度来看，道德责任可以被描述为企业行为的质量，通过这种行为，负责任的企业表现出智慧、谨慎和道德坚韧等特征，然而这篇Business作业从另一个角度来看，这意味着迫使企业像对待个人一样对自己的行为负责。根据Constantinescu和Kaptein，企业环境中对结果的道德责任可以归属于企业内部的个人、企业本身或两者，将其定义为个人道德责任、企业道德责任和概括企业道德责任。以下就是这篇Business作业代写范例的具体内容，供参考。
Moral responsibility 道德责任
Moral responsibility is the voluntary attributable responsibility ensuring that acts knowingly and intentionally carried out by rational human beings don’t cause injury to other individuals. Wilmot (2001) contrasts the theories that from a business perspective, moral responsibility can be described as the quality of corporate behaviour by which the responsible corporation displays such characteristics as wisdom, prudence and moral fortitude, however from another perspective can be held to mean forcing corporations to account for their actions much as one would an individual. According to Constantinescu and Kaptein (2015), moral responsibility for outcomes in corporate settings can be ascribed individuals within the corporation, the corporation itself, or both, defining these as individual moral responsibility, corperate moral responsibility and Summative Corporate Moral Responsibility.
There is a common held traditional belief that the product itself doesn’t denote responsibility itself and that it is the user who has ultimate responsibility however this has been distorted over time to incorporate products liability and the effects thereof. According to Federwisch (2015), an individual or party is morally responsible for an event as long as three premises are met, namely if they caused the event to occur, they acted within the bounds of reason and they could have prevented the event from occurring.
人们普遍认为，产品本身并不意味着责任本身，而是用户负有最终责任，但随着时间的推移，这一观点被扭曲，将产品责任及其影响纳入其中。根据Federwisch的说法，只要满足三个前提，个人或一方就对事件负有道德责任，即如果他们导致事件发生，他们的行为在合理的范围内，他们本可以阻止事件发生。
An example of this is the Perrier scandal in 1992, when a US production site discovered bottles containing the toxic chemical benzene. Perrier was arguably the market lead with over 60% sales derived from overseas exports. Having no contingency plan for product recall, the managements initial response was to pass the event off as an isolated incident, however when benzene was identified in Perrier globally, this was identified as an untenable explanation. In order to attempt to maintain reputation, a product recall of 160 million bottles from 120 countries was instigated at a cost of over $250m. Unfortunately, there was a delay in action from the company and poor decision making along with poor communication led to a loss of reputation among consumers (Caesar-Gordon., 2015). Subsequently, Perrier effectively went out of business, being brought up by the Nestlé cooperation.
本篇作业提出在这方面的一个例子是1992年的Perrier丑闻，当时美国的一个生产基地发现了含有有毒化学物质苯的瓶子。Perrier可以说是市场领先者，60%以上的销售额来自海外出口。由于没有产品召回的应急计划，管理层最初的反应是将该事件视为一个孤立的事件，然而，当Perrier在全球范围内发现苯时，这被认为是一个站不住脚的解释。为了维护声誉，从120个国家召回了1.6亿瓶产品，费用超过2.5亿美元。不幸的是，该公司推迟了行动，糟糕的决策和糟糕的沟通导致了消费者的声誉损失。随后，Perrier实际上倒闭了，由雀巢的合作扩大。
This can be contrasted with the earlier effects of the Johnson and Johnson Tylenol event when in the eighties, packets of the pain killer Tylenol were deliberately contaminated with cyanide and placed upon the shelves resulting in several deaths. Immediately, the management body at the manufacturers made an ethical decision in accordance with their ethical perspective and halted the advertising campaign from the product, recalled 31 million bottles- Tylenol accounted for 17% of the companies net income, causing a cost of $100 million. Ultimately, the decision proved to be highly successful. Whilst initial losses were apparent, and stock prices in the firm dipped, public confidence in the firm was restored by the action and within two months of the event, the stock prices recovered and the company regained its market position (Benoit, 2012).
这可以与强生公司泰诺事件的早期影响形成对比，当时在80年代，止痛药泰诺的包装被故意用氰化物污染，并被放在货架上，导致数人死亡。制造商的管理机构立即根据他们的道德观点做出了道德决定，并停止了该产品的广告宣传活动，召回了3100万瓶——泰诺占公司净收入的17%，造成了1亿美元的成本。最终，这个决定被证明是非常成功的。虽然最初的损失很明显，公司股价下跌，但公众对公司的信心因该行动而恢复，在事件发生后的两个月内，股价回升，公司重新获得了市场地位。
There are however, examples in which the conditions become a grey area, notably in the manufacture of products that are designed to cause harm, creating a paradox in the subject of moral responsibility. Constantinescu and Kaptein (2015) posed the question, is there any point in discussing the morality of organizations when this could be rendered redundant in light of existing legislation-as such, do ethics transend law. Comparative morality suggests they do in that a firm may be acting within the bounds of legality, yet still perform unethical actions. An example of this is the production of armaments. Guns are designed to kill. They may not be employed as such as they can be used for certain non-lethal sporting practices e.g. target, filed and skeet (clay pigeon) however that dos not detract from the fact that the primary rationale for the design of a gun is to have the ability to kill. As such it becomes difficult to prove that the product was misused relative to its design specification whilst maintaining that the action met with the conditions outlined earlier that denote responsibility.
然而，作业又提出也有一些例子表明，情况变成了灰色地带，尤其是在制造旨在造成伤害的产品时，在道德责任问题上造成了悖论。Constantinescu和Kaptein提出了一个问题，即在现有立法的情况下，讨论组织的道德问题是否有意义，比如道德转换法。比较道德表明，一家公司的行为可能在合法范围内，但仍在进行不道德的行为。军备生产就是一个例子。枪支是用来杀人的。它们可能不会被使用，因为它们可以用于某些非致命的运动练习，例如打靶、锉和双向飞碟，但这并不能削弱枪支设计的主要理由是具有杀伤能力这一事实。因此，很难证明产品相对于其设计规范被滥用，同时坚持认为该行为符合前面列出的表示责任的条件。
According to Kurtzleben (2015), it is not true that gun manufacturers are not liable for their goods, however, they have specific legal protections against liability that very few other industries can share, namely the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005-this doesn’t absolve arms manufacturers from liability pertaining to defects in the construction of the item however it does provide the mechanism by which use of the device within its intended purpose cannot de facto be classified as misuse thereby, if such a weapon was used to cause harm to an individual, then it is performing as it was intended and a case cannot be bought against the manufacturer. If conversely during the process, the weapon self-destructs and harms the user then the manufacturer is liable.
根据Kurtzleben的说法，枪支制造商对其产品不承担责任是不真实的，然而，他们有特定的法律保护措施来防止责任，而其他行业很少能分担，即2005年的《保护武器合法商业法》，这并不能免除武器制造商对该物品结构缺陷的责任，但它确实提供了一种机制，通过该机制，如果该武器被用于对个人造成伤害，则在其预期用途内使用该装置事实上不能被归类为滥用，那么它正在按预期运行，不能对制造商提起诉讼。如果相反，在这个过程中，武器自毁并伤害了使用者，那么制造商就要承担责任。
Wilmott (2001) raises the question that the application of corporate responsibility being aimed at the organisation rather than the actions of an individual arises because the probability of ascertaining guilt amongst a complex organisation is unlikely therefore the outcome is questionable. This leads to examination of the nature of punishments incurred by the relative organisation which may often appear complex and disproportionate, however this can reflect upon the nature of the punishment being control or deterrence, and can be compounded by the effect of reputation and image in light of a positive outcome.
References 参考文献
Benoit, A. (2012, November 11). Johnson and Johnson: Recalling, Reassuring, and Reviving. Retrieved March 11, 2017
Constantinescu, M., Kaptein, M. (2015). Mutually enhancing responsibility: a theoretical exploration of the interaction mechanisms between individual and corporate moral responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics: JBE; Dordrecht129.2 (Jun 2015): 325-339.
Caesar-Gordon , A. (2015). Lessons to learn from a product recall .Retrieved March 04, 2017
Federwisch, A. (2015). The Ethics of Product Usage. Retrieved March 11, 2017
Wilmot, S., (2001). Corporate moral responsibility: What can we infer from our understanding of organisations? Journal of Business Ethics: JBE; Dordrecht30.2 (Mar 2001): 161-169
Wilmott提出了一个问题，即企业责任的适用是针对组织而非个人的行为，因为在一个复杂的组织中确定有罪的可能性不大，因此结果值得怀疑。这导致了对相关组织所遭受惩罚的性质的审查，这些惩罚往往看起来复杂和不成比例，但这可能反映出惩罚的性质是控制或威慑，并可能因积极结果而受到声誉和形象的影响。本站提供各国各专业作业范文，作业代写以及作业写作辅导，如有需要可咨询本平台。