Unit 1 Power Point

Business Issues & Ethics
Arrangements of tutorials 16 Oct 2011: Unit 1 6 Nov 2011: Unit 2(& 3) 4 Dec 2011: Workshop 18 Dec 2011: Unit 3 (& 4) 15 Jan 2012: Unit 4 & 5

Employers & Employees Mutual trust & confidence Employers: can t victimised Employees: duty of confidence, can t steal co s property, lax supervision, etc.

Business ethics Study of business situations, activities & decisions where issues of moral right & wrong are addressed Concern the moral right & wrong of business decisions some cases: unlawful but moral / lawful but unethical

Business ethics & law Overlap Business law: business behaviour, e.g. employment, consumer protection, workers health & safety, trading standards, environmental protection, copyright, etc.

Ethics as rationalisation of morality Morality: norms, values & beliefs embedded in social processes which define right & wrong for an individual / community

Ethics as rationalisation of morality Ethics: study of morality & application of reason to clarify specific rules & principles that determine right & wrong for a given situation Rules & principles: ethical theories Ethics: application of morality to establish principles & rules that determine acceptance behaviour in a given situation

Ethics as rationalisation of morality Ethics: culturally determined Beliefs & values of families, communities & societies influence ethical norms that determine people s behaviour

Case Study 1.3: Loan to SAFE Co Ltd In return, giving travel advantage to father Not only unthical But also criminal offence, i.e. corruption, though indirect

Case study 1.4: Non-executive director Tam: though independent non-executive director, close business relationship Conflict of interest? If disclosed & approved, no problem

Joint stock limited liability co Purpose: create wealth? Any social responsibilities? E.g. environment, employment, etc.

Joint stock limited liability co Sole trader Partnership Un-incorporated body

Joint stock limited liability co Incorporation of a legal entity, separate from its owners Has legal property rights of a real person, contract (sue/be sued), ownership of property, power to employ,etc.

Joint stock limited liability co Perpetual succession Life of its own, independent of its shareholders Continuity beyond the life of its founders Shares can be transferred toother people

Joint stock limited liability co Owner s liability for company s debt is limited to their equity investment i.e. money they invested in buying co s shares Shareholders can t be sued for debts incurred by co

Joint stock limited liability co Shareholders elect their directors who are answerable to them Directors have a duty of trust Fiduciary duty: to act in the interests of their shareholders

Joint stock limited liability co Private & public companies able to offer shares to the public Listed on a stock exchange

Joint stock limited liability co Corporate governance the way power is exercised over corporate entities Separation of power: governance power shifted from shareholders to directors

Joint stock limited liability co Corporate governance Principles-based approach: follow code s requirements unless the board of directors feels that co s circumstances call for a different approach, in which case they must explain why

Joint stock limited liability co Corporate governance Rule-based approach: obey law or risk penalities HK: principles-based approach Listing rules: all cos need to follow the code / explain why they haven t done so

Corporate Social Responsibility Purpose of co: increase profit Only legitimate purpose of co: create wealth, pursue business effectively for benefit of its customers while providing profitable reward to its investors Directors duty was to their shareholders Co don t have conscience

Corporate Social Responsibility Four levels: 1. Discretionary responsibilities: undertake voluntary activities & expenditures exceeding society s minimum expectation (what co might like to do? (giving something back to society)) 2. Ethical responsibilities: honour society s wider social norms & expectations of behaviour over & above the law in line w/ local cuture (what society expects of co (how people expect us to behave))

Corporate Social Responsibility Four levels: 3. Legal responsibilities: adhere society s laws & regulations (what co must do to stay within the law) 4. Economic responsibilities: profit-oriented & market-driven (what co must do to meet their basic aims (long term growth & profit))

Corporate Social Responsibility Every co has an implicit organisational culture that lays down norms of behaviour A way to attract & hold customers, satisfy customers & build good reputation within community Ultimately, benefit long-term profitability

Corporate Social Responsibility E.g. European countries: co responsible to employees, shareholders, etc. Long-term policy of co-determination Informal partnership between labour & capital Two-tier board system of corporate governance

Corporate Social Responsibility Lower-tier executive board: running business Upper-tier (supervisory): monitoring & overseeing executive board s performance Supervisory board: equal numbers of members representing interests of employees & shareholders

Corporate Social Responsiveness Four levels: React: denying cos have responsibility for social issues & it s government job Defend: recognising socialresponsibilities but trying to minimise cost of meeting them (public relation)

Corporate Social Responsiveness Four levels: Accommodate: accepting social responsibilities in line w/ reasonable expectations of societies in which they operate

Corporate Social Responsiveness Four levels: Be practive: going beyond norms of their industry & societies, creating new patterns of social behaviour & raising expectations of future behaviour

Corporate accountability Previously answerable to shareholders But stakeholder theory: any group /individual who can affect, achievement of organisational s objectives Stakeholder rights: any person or group whose interests could be affected by actions of co

Corporate accountability Stakeholder: person / group interacting w/ co E.g. suppliers, employees, customers,etc. Meaning everyone in a co added-value chain Others: competitor, local communities, NGOs, pressure group, etc.

Corporate accountability Problem: shareholders interests may be short term & speculative, w/ no real concern abt long term future, so don t care abt employees who rely on co s long term future for their pensions! Suppliers who look to co for their own continuing & survival & success Customers: relying on co to guarantee their products & providing continuing supoport

The role of government New levels of accountability, giving stakeholders more info on matters that might affect them Responsible to various stakeholders, taking their opinions into a/c in corporate decision-making Stakeholder democracy So goven t need to act

Corporate power around the world Power moving from govn ts to large organisations Ability of cos to move businesses from place to place, creating / destroying employment Shift their wealth around the world, affecting tax base around the country Develop product brands that dominate markets & harm local producers

Corporate power around the world Privatisation of enterprises that previously were run by government entities Liberalisation & deregulation Shift to power from centrist goven t to corporate control E.g. global financial crisis

Corporate citizen Three levels: 1. Philanthropic view: equating activities w/ corporate giving of funds, goods, etc. to charitable purpose 2. Stakeholder view: co developing CSR policies & practices that reflect co s belief that this is how co should behave 3. Political & societal view: co sees itself as a player in societal & political process

Corporate citizen Good corporate citizenship having economic benefits Good standing in community can create social recognition, avoidance of lawsuit & improving long-term profits & consequently rising share priice

What makes a business decision ethical? Normative theories vs Descriptive theories Normative ones: focusing on how people & organisations should behave, whereas Descriptive ones: focusing on what people in organisations actually do, and why they do it.

What makes a business decision ethical? (a) The effect on others - i.e. consequences, 1st step in deciding whether a business transaction is ethical Recognise the effect that decision will have on others; If threatening to harm them, then may be unthical. Cos moral behaviour calls for consideration of others. By acting ethically, need to see the world through other peoples eyes.

What makes a business decision ethical? (a) The effect on others - i.e. consequences, 1st step in deciding whether a business transaction is ethical E.g. decision not to repair a defective machinery immediately is unethical cos it poses risk(s) to worker(s) who operate(s) the machine.

What makes a business decision ethical? (a) The effect on others - i.e. consequences, 1st step in deciding whether a business transaction is ethical Not all decisions harming others are unethical. E.g. closing a factory in China & moving it to Vietnam co s lower labour cost in the latter . Effect: workers in China losing their jobs but directors producing sustained profits to shareholders in the long term.

What makes a business decision ethical? (a) The effect on others - i.e. consequences, 1st step in deciding whether a business transaction is ethical If facing such dilemma, need to identify those would-be-affected stakeholders & comparing the interests & needs of each. Bearing in mind, often interests of different stakeholders will be in conflict with each other.

What makes a business decision ethical? (a) The effect on others - i.e. consequences, 1st step in deciding whether a business transaction is ethical Therefore, not possible to act in the best interests of them all. i.e. some may have more, whereas some may have less

What makes a business decision ethical? (a) The effect on others - i.e. consequences, 1st step in deciding whether a business transaction is ethical Challenge is to act in a way that is morally defensible. i.e. balance self-interest / the best interest of our co w/ the good of society as a whole. i.e. Greater good argument , but some countries, e.g. US, using it as an excuse for waging war.

Activity 1.5 - Is copying software unethical? Facts: pls refer to notes p 28. View: copying software for free adversely affects others. Effect of such copying: creators of the program don t receive a royalty for their efforts, other people/cos involving the making, distributing & selling receive nothing arising from such copying, i.e. losing incomes/profits.

What makes a business decision ethical? (b) alternatives available? i.e. 2nd step in deciding whether a decision is ethical Consider alternative courses of action that might be open. E.g. restaurant s success owing to its food containing much more salt, but research showing adverse effect of having too much salt.

What makes a business decision ethical? (b) alternatives available? i.e. 2nd step in deciding whether a decision is ethical Manager: whether reducing salt content / remaining status quo (cos reducing salt level likely affecting business)

What makes a business decision ethical? (b) alternatives available? i.e. 2nd step in deciding whether a decision is ethical In such situation, decision maker need to balance the long-term interests of co w/ its short-term interests. & balance the interests of co w/ those stakeholders, e.g. customers, health care services, etc.

What makes a business decision ethical? (c) how people perceive ethical relevance, i.e.3rd step in deciding whether a decision is ethical Consider whether those stakeholders who could be affected by such action think that it is ethical. E.g. planning to build a big shopping mall in countryside, although bringing great benefits to local community, harming the environment for animals, flowers, etc.

What makes a business decision ethical? Summary To decide whether a business decision is ethical, three steps: 1. Recognise the effect that the decision will have on others; 2. Consider what alternative courses of action are open; and

What makes a business decision ethical? Summary 3. Consider whether others think the decision has ethical attributes / effects. Therefore, if a decision has ethical dimensions, decision-maker must take a moral judgement & the choice he chooses should lead to morallyaccepted ethical behaviour.

What makes a business decision ethical? But two limitations Individual factors & situational factors Individual ones: having unique characteristics & differing in their responses in ethical situations, e.g. gender & age, family background, education, personality / social experiences.

What makes a business decision ethical? But two limitations Situational ones: also affecting responses to ethical issues, e.g. work context, organisation s culture,its reward system,job responsibilities. What s more, nature of ethical issue itself also affecting the situation, e.g. the way an ethical issue is perceived & how vital it seems to be.

Cultural perspectives on ethical decision making Crane & Matten (2007): in America, individual factors influencing decision-maker more than situational. Complete reverse when comparing w/ Europe Cos Europeans focusing on pursuit of organisational objectives rather than individual behaviour.

Cultural perspectives on ethical decision making (a) Individual factors: why do people act as they do? Why do people take different view on rights & wrongs of a specific situation from others? E.g. whether co should borrow a significant sum from bank to fund a proposed development programme.

Cultural perspectives on ethical decision making (a) Individual factors: why do people act as they do? Chinese CEO & Major Shareholder working for co for 30 yrs: scale of proposed loan representing too much of a risk. His son (Harvard Business School graduate) working for co for 2 yrs: disagreeing w/ father, arguing that taking risks was the nature of business: the way that $ is made. And lost!

Cultural perspectives on ethical decision making (a) Individual factors: why do people act as they do? American independent non-executive director (an American merchant banker): too narrowlly-restricted scope to think of the issue, but it happens all the time in American business decision-making process.

Cultural perspectives on ethical decision making (a) Individual factors: why do people act as they do? Point: three directors being from different generations, different educational & work experiences, & different nationalities.

Cultural perspectives on ethical decision making (b) Individual factors: what influences people to act as they do? (b) (i) Reasons for different people having different thinkings in the same ethical issues Age & gender: experience is likely to increase w/ age, & often women tend to see issues & to think differently from men.

Cultural perspectives on ethical decision making (b) Individual factors: what influences people to act as they do? (b) (i) Reasons for different people having different thinkings in the same ethical issues National & cultural characteristics: close family control, centralised decision-making process w/ close personal links emphasising trust & control, paternalistic style in mgnt such as dependence on relationships & harmony, avoiding confrontation & risk of losing face , strategically intuitive by heavily relying on intuition, superstition, tough-minded bargaining rather than strategic plan, brand-creation & quantitative analysis, & equity stake being kept within the family.

Cultural perspectives on ethical decision making (b) Individual factors: what influences people to act as they do? (b) (i) Reasons for different people having different thinkings in the same ethical issues Geert Hofstede (1980): characteristics between nations & cultures.

Cultural perspectives on ethical decision making (b) Individual factors: what influences people to act as they do? (b) (i) Reasons for different people having different thinkings in the same ethical issues Four primary dimensions: 1. Tendency of a culture to emphasis individualism as against collectivism. 2. power distance between those in authority & those under them.

Cultural perspectives on ethical decision making (b) Individual factors: what influences people to act as they do? (b) (i) Reasons for different people having different thinkings in the same ethical issues 3. Need for members of a culture to try to reduce / avoid uncertainty. 4. Tendency in a culture to value things as against valuing people & relationships.

Cultural perspectives on ethical decision making (b) Individual factors: what influences people to act as they do? (b) (i) Reasons for different people having different thinkings in the same ethical issues Education & employment: e.g. American (Harvard Business School) long-term profitability & increasing share price.

Cultural perspectives on ethical decision making (b) Individual factors: what influences people to act as they do? (b) (i) Reasons for different people having different thinkings in the same ethical issues Nowadays, widespread recognition that ethical behaviour is fundamental to long-term business success. After collapse of various financial institutions in western countries, raising questions:

Cultural perspectives on ethical decision making (b) Individual factors: what influences people to act as they do? (b) (i) Reasons for different people having different thinkings in the same ethical issues 1. Did massive salaries, share options & pension entitlements awarded to top executives encourage greed & excessive risk-taking?

Cultural perspectives on ethical decision making (b) Individual factors: what influences people to act as they do? (b) (i) Reasons for different people having different thinkings in the same ethical issues 2. were these fair rewards for taking huge risks w/ their shareholders funds? 3. Were they, in fact, being rewarded for failure?

Cultural perspectives on ethical decision making (b) Individual factors: what influences people to act as they do? (b) (i) Reasons for different people having different thinkings in the same ethical issues Sr mgnt taking advantage of their positions toimprove their own well-being & jr staff adopting similar attitudes. So needed code of behaviour like the ones in those professional bodies such as lawyers, accountants, etc.

(b) (i) Psychological factors (a) Cognitive Moral Development (CMD) Distinctions in stages thro which people go as they mature in their moral development: Level 1: people develop more autonomous decision-making based on principles of rights & justice rather than being influenced by those around them. Level 2: people try to do what is expected of them by others. Level 3: people are concerned w/ self-interest, influenced by rewards & punishments.

(b) (i) Psychological factors Level 1 is the world of children who see themselves as the centre of the world. In level 2, people reaching this stage become aware of other peoples expectations of them & try to respond accordingly, & research shows that many people adopt this stage of thinking throughout their business life. At level 3, focus has shifted from the context to the individual & people at this level apply their own ethical judgments, based on their own beliefs abt what is fair / unfair, what is just /unjust, what is right / wrong. People at this level tend to meet ethical dilemmas, i.e. when their personal ethics don t concur w/ those of others.

(b) (i) Psychological factors (b) Person s locus control Means the extent to which they believe they can influence the world around them. Internal locus control: they believe they can powerfully influence what is going on around them. External locus control: they believe they are mainly influenced by external forces, feeling that it s the actions of others who largely determine outcomes.

(b) (i) Personal values Milton Rokeach (1973) definition: a. A personal value is an enduring belief that a specified mode of conduct/end-state of existence is personally/socially preferable to an opposite/converse made of conduct/end-state; or b. PVs are beliefs we hold abt the appropriate way to behave. They enable us to decide the right balance between good & bad, & right & wrong.

(b) (i) Personal integrity When people found they disagree w/ others on organisational/business issue, cos it conflicts w/ their personal integrity, they can face a potentially troubling moral dilemma. But what can we do? Sometimes people resign; quit the organisation. Leave the problem behind, avoid personal dilemma. But for other people, their personal integrity calls on them to make a stand, e.g. whistle blowing: publicly exposing the business issue that has led to the ethical problem.

(b) (i) Whistle blowing Occurs when whistle blower believes a person/organisation is violating a law, an ethical code / whistle blower s personal integrity. Convey the concern to a person in authority, e.g. boss, police, ICAC, etc.

(b) (i) Whistle blowing If person in authority, say, immediate supervisor, assuming the responsibilities fails to take action to put it right, whistle blower must decide whether to take the next step: e.g. going to a higher authority, going public to the media, etc.

(b) (i) Whistle blowing Likely effect: may be victimised & career prospect jeopardised, or even fired cos seen as trouble makers & blacklisted from getting another job in that industry..

(b) (i) Whistle blowing If fired, no. of channels open to pursue the problem further: e.g. contact co s auditors, co regulator / mass media. But be aware of law of defamation, i.e. libel & slander.

(b) (i) Whistle blowing Some cos offering whistle blower bonus if they resign from co on condition that they sign an agreement to keep their mouth shut. Some govn ts recognise existence of WB & provide some protection arising from their utterance of malpractices.

(b) (i) Moral imagination Ability to perceive ethical dimensions of a situation/problem. In business situation, tend to go along w/ the crowed, accept this is the way things are done here & avoid applying their own personal values unless the situation is extreme. E.g. child labour.

(c) Situational factors (issued-related factors) Organisation acquires culture over time: a set of beliefs, values & expected responses to given situations. Long-established cos: reinforced by a collection of anecdotes, myths & legends. Facing a particular issue, tending to draw on this collective memory.

(c) Situational factors (issued-related factors) (c) (i) Moral intensity Facing business issue w/ moral dimension, various players holding different views. Jones (1991): six factors. 1. Magnitude of consequences: sum of harms & benefits likely to arise from proposed action. 2. Probability of effect: likelihood of these harms & benefits arising.

(c) Situational factors (issued-related factors) (c) (i) Moral intensity 3. Social consequences: extent to which players are agreed on ethics of proposed action. 4. (temporal) immediacy: speed w/ which possible consequences are likely to occur. 5. Proximity: closeness that players feel to the affected, e.g. decision to cut staff during recession would feel different if staff were at yr own workplace than in a foreign country. 6. Concentration of effort: does outcome impact lightly on many/heavily on a few? E.g. is it worse to steal $10 from a colleague / fail to return $10 given to you in wrong change in a shop owned by a large co?

(c) Situational factors (issued-related factors) (c) (ii) Moral framing (MF) Different people likely to feel that moral intensity to different degrees. The way the ethical issue is described/framed can affect a person s views on it. E.g. plagiarism. MF can also take place after a decision has been made to rationalise/justify the decision, particularly if the outcome has produced criticisms.

(c) Situational factors (issued-related factors) (c) (iii) Context-related factors Various systems & procedures providing the context for business decisions may influence the outcome. E.g. reward system, authority structure, nature & extent of bureaucracy, work roles, organisational norm & overall cultural context.

(c) Situational factors (issued-related factors) (c) (iii) Context-related factors (c) (iii) (a) Reward system Many forms: wages/salary, commission, bonus, fees for extra work, pension entitlements, health care, etc. & even status. Whether rewards offered by co motivate employees while still encouraging their ethicalbehaviour.

(c) Situational factors (issued-related factors) (c) (iii) (a) Context-related factors If too much emphasis placed on motivation to perform, a temptation to adopt unethical practices to achieve the commission, bonus, etc. E.g. salesman trying to sell goods without telling customers whether the goods suit them, production manager manipulated production figures to obtain production bonus, etc. Summary: if unethical behaviour is rewarded, likely to continue & to be copied by others.

(c) Situational factors (issued-related factors) (c) (iii) Context-related factors (c) (iii) (b) Authority structure In hierarchical organisation structure, managers at each level given authority to delegate responsibility for work downwards to subordinates who are answerable upwards to them. Upper ones in turn accountable for their performance to their managers.

(c) Situational factors (issued-related factors) (c) (iii) Context-related factors (c) (iii) (b) Authority structure Managers at each level owe a responsibility to people who report to them. Subordinates look up to their boss, not only for instructions but for inspiration. Some cos adopting less formal approach, working in teams, w/ more flexibility & less rigidly.

(c) Situational factors (issued-related factors) (c) (iii) Context-related factors (c) (iii) (c) Bureaucracy Formal bureaucracy, i.e. authority structure, formal system of accountability & reward system: detrimental to good ethical decisionmaking.

(c) Situational factors (issued-related factors) (c) (iii) Context-related factors (c) (iii) (c) Bureaucracy Reasons: Suppression of moral authority: personal ethical values have to be subjugated to the norms demanded by bureaucracy. Crane & Matten (2007): employees are in danger of becoming moral robots , following rules & obeying instructions w/o thinking independently/questioning ethics of situations. E.g. customers hotline in India serving Britishs in UK: no knowledge abt the people they are talking to & only giving answer that appeared on the screen.

(c) Situational factors (issued-related factors) (c) (iii) Context-related factors (c) (iii) (c) Bureaucracy Instrumental morality: when attention focused on achievement of organisational goals, conformity is expected. Loyalty not integrity becomes driving force. E.g. salesman pushing customers to buy products w/o telling them whether the goods suit them. Conformity to corporate goals demanded & questioning ethics of situation treated as a mark of disloyalty.

(c) Situational factors (issued-related factors) (c) (iii) Context-related factors (c) (iii) (c) Bureaucracy Distancing: staff likely to be distanced from where effects of their actions occur, i.e. distant from ethical problems that arise as a result of their decisions. E.g. purchasing mgr of furniture manufacturer had no awareness of long-term effects of his purchases of timber on depletion of Malaysian forests.

(c) Situational factors (issued-related factors) (c) (iii) Context-related factors (c) (iii) (c) Bureaucracy Denial of moral status: by focusing on efficiency & attainment of overall objectives, treat individuals as human resources not human beings to whom they owe a moral duty.

(c) Situational factors (issued-related factors) (c) (iii) Context-related factors (c) (iii) (d) work roles In our lives, we play different roles: member of family, social setting such as sports club, school, etc. In our work, we don t leave our personal values in locker as we enter the workplace.

(c) Situational factors (issued-related factors) (c) (iii) Context-related factors (c) (iii) (d) work roles But we may need to subordinate our personal values to those demanded by our employer. E.g. mgr personally thinking that drinking alcohol is bad, but in his work, required to entertain clients/customers

(c) Situational factors (issued-related factors) (c) (iii) Context-related factors (c) (iii) (d) Group norms Develop their own expectations & beliefs abt how members of group should behave. Group norms suggesting the ways that things are done, or not done, within the group. Determine how those in group are expected to act. Evolve from time to time as circumstances & experience grows. New member must learn what is expected.

(c) Situational factors (issued-related factors) (c) (iii) Context-related factors (c) (iii) (d) Group norms Can have ethical element. E.g. DVD production factory: allowed to take home a DVD copy cos the pay is not good, so at least this is a small compensation.

(c) Situational factors (issued-related factors) (c) (iii) Context-related factors (c) (iii) (e) National cultural context National, regional, religious & political cultures. E.g. Muslim world: Islamic finance of loan w/ no interests received, place of women in society, abuse of alcohol, etc.

(c) Situational factors (issued-related factors) (c) (iii) Context-related factors (c) (iii) (e) National cultural context Clear that different cultures having different opinions on what is right & wrong, moral & immoral, ethical & unethical. Failure to observe not only harm business relations, but also cause extreme personal distress.

Unit 1 Power Point

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Unit 1 Power Point

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics

Business Issues & Ethics