Business Ethics has become a bigger deal than it was just years ago. Sustainability and ways to be “green” are ideal when consumers are putting their money in any business/service and they strive to make sure that the companies are not only eco=-friendly but morally sound as well.
Take this article, for starters, that states people react more strongly to companies that seemingly do not have any sort of ethical/environmental concern. While it is not guaranteed that those who are well-informed necessarily will make the right decisions, it’s obvious that it is wise in this day and age to have some sort of plan for the environment. Between 2010-2012, boycott rates have gone up by 123%, most of which are for either companies that have unsustainable palm oil or refusing the use of certain petrol stations, people no longer just want to invest in something that is not clean. Amnesty, Greenpeace, and the likes of these organizations are reaching out to people and the fact that the internet is full of information at the click of a mouse makes it even easier for shoppers to be aware of what goes on with these companies when it comes to their ethics and morals.
Going back to our Class 3: Business Ethics, the two contrasting viewpoints were of Friedman (http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ubc/reader.action?docID=10187339&ppg=171) and Freeman (https://www.youtube.com/embed/bIRUaLcvPe8) Friedman believed that the only concern that any executive working was to maximize profits and impress his boss essentially. He says that the only social responsibility any employee has to his/her business is to maximize profits. It seems to be a rather cut-throat approach as this point of view is not very tolerant or open to the ideas of unemployment or environmental concerns that do exist.
Freeman’s stakeholder Theory stated that in order for the business to thrive, the max stakeholders must thrive as well. Including its customers, the people working for the company, the suppliers, the community as well as the financiers. All of these stakeholders must be getting some sort of value from the business, then and only then will be the business thrive and survive.
How does ethics fit into this? If people are only willing to invest into something that they know is environmentally sustainable and morally correct, that is their value from the business. It is important because customers, as a part of the stakeholders must be satisfied with what is going on with the company. If we take Friedman’s approach, then companies don’t have to be sustainable at all, rather they can overproduce and cause pollution if they choose to as their moral obligation is only to their company and its profits. And what’s interesting is that this article is pretty much saying that’s wrong and in this day and age it won’t work due to people’s awareness of not only the environment but also all the toxic that’s being put in it.
I’ve always agreed with Freeman’s Theory simply because I believe that it is important to be morally aware of your surroundings as well as empathetic to others’ situations (incase of unemployment, for example) It’s important for a company to choose to be sustainable and not simply “seem” that way in hopes of increasing profit. However, that being said, a company can only do so much morally. A company at the end of the day, (and any business for that matter) is created as a service to people but the ultimate goal is always to maximize profit (make money) and it’s important to make sure that goal is being reached because otherwise it’s no longer an ethical business if they are not making any money. I can see where Friedman comes from when he says that essentially that’s what businesses are supposed to do, but it’s important to look at the bigger picture and sometimes make decisions that may not maximize profit simply for the greater good.

Original Source:
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/industry-voice-blog/2364029/are-consumers-becoming-more-aware-of-environmentally-sound-business