Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) holds diverse meanings across industries due to variations in financial responsibilities and stakeholder relationships. Sustainable development, encompassing Corporate Social Responsibility and business ethics, entails meeting current needs without jeopardizing the well-being of future generations, leading to the formulation of sustainable development goals. Corporate responsibility is now widely embraced, with increased scrutiny from businesses, consumers, academics, and policymakers (Manasakis, 2018).

The current scenario raises ethical concerns, notably regarding informed consent and the potential exposure of sensitive genetic information. Uchromz, having amassed millions of DNA samples in a continuously expanding biobank, faces risks related to security, confidentiality, and potential misuse by third parties. Privacy, security, informed consent, and confidentiality are significant ethical considerations, with challenges in obtaining fully informed consent (Darby & Weinstock, 2018).

DNA donors need clarity in consent forms due to vague wording, ensuring transparency and safety. Privacy and confidentiality are critical ethical principles, and Uchromz must responsibly safeguard customer information, especially when dealing with third parties over which it has no control (Noroozi et al., 2018).

Stakeholders’ Primary Interests

Uchromz stakeholders, including the company itself, consumers, and partnering institutions, harbor distinct interests. Uchromz aims to adhere to ethical and legal guidelines, protect customer privacy, and mitigate potential risks. Consumers seek genetic testing for ancestry and health information while maintaining control over their DNA data. Partnering institutions desire access to a large DNA biobank for research purposes and collaboration with a successful biotech firm (Uchromz) (Schumacher et al., 2020).

Normative Ethical Theory

Utilitarianism, a normative ethical theory emphasizing action and consequences, offers a flexible approach. Applying Utilitarianism to the scenario, Uchromz prioritizes the security and confidentiality of DNA sample providers, aligning its interests with those of customers, employees, and other stakeholders (Häyry, 2020).

Milton Friedman’s Stakeholder’s Theory

Friedman’s stakeholder theory posits that a business’s primary obligation is to advance stakeholders’ financial interests, emphasizing profit maximization. Uchromz must balance the interests of stakeholders to achieve long-term success, applying this theory to prioritize stakeholders’ primary interests and values (Okafor et al., 2021).

Traditional Theory of Normative Ethics

In the deontology theory of normative ethics, actions are evaluated based on their alignment with ethical rules or principles. Uchromz, as part of its corporate social responsibility, must protect the privacy and security of DNA sample providers by restricting third-party information sharing (Barrow & Khandhar, 2019).

Deficiencies of Milton Friedman’s Shareholder Theory

Milton Friedman’s Shareholder Theory, centered on maximizing gains and limited social responsibility, has faced criticism for prioritizing short-term profits at the expense of broader societal and environmental concerns. Uchromz should prioritize safety and security over profit, adhering to core ethical values and ensuring stakeholders’ protection (Clarke, 2020).

Conclusion

In conclusion, CSR involves sustainable development, considering social, environmental, and economic factors for long-term business impacts. Business ethics guides companies towards integrity, and aligning with normative ethical theories aids in addressing ethical challenges effectively.

References

Barrow, J. M., & Khandhar, P. B. (2019). Deontology. Nih.gov. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459296

Clarke, T. (2020). The Contest on corporate purpose: Why Lynn Stout was right, and Milton Friedman was wrong. Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2020-0145

Darby, W. C., & Weinstock, R. (2018). The limits of confidentiality: Informed consent and psychotherapy. Focus, 16(4), 395–401. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.focus.20180020

Elrick, J., & Thies, C. F. (2018). The social responsibility of business: Milton Friedman reconsidered. Journal of Markets & Morality, 21(2). https://www.marketsandmorality.com/index.php/mandm/article/view/1356

Häyry, M. (2020). Just better Utilitarianism. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 30(2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180120000882

PHI FPX 2000 Assessment 2 Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility

Manasakis, C. (2018). Business ethics and corporate social responsibility. Managerial and Decision Economics, 39(4), 486–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.2921

Noroozi, M., Zahedi, L., Bathaei, F. S., & Salari, P. (2018). Challenges of confidentiality in clinical settings: Compilation of an ethical guideline. Iranian Journal of Public Health, 47(6), 875–883. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6077627/

Okafor, A., Adeleye, B. N., & Adusei, M. (2021). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Evidence from U.S tech firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 292, 126078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126078

Schumacher, G. J., Sawaya, S., Nelson, D., & Hansen, A. J. (2020). Genetic information insecurity as state of the art. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2020.591980

PHI FPX 2000 Assessment 2 Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility