THE HEART OF PROFIT MAKING

CHASE TESCHENDORF

The opening line in Paul Camenisch’s “Business Ethics: On

getting to the Heart of the Matter” is central to my working
theory about religious business ethics so far. He writes, “Many
current discussions of business ethics seem in the end to locate
the ethical concern some distance from the central and essential
activity of business.” He argues that basic human ethics are at
the heart of ethics, but more advanced issues are unaddressed.
At the heart of this argument, I say the issue lies at the concept of “the lowest
common moral dominator.” It is possible to say there are certain moral standards
that are accepted by business because absolutely everyone agrees with the
concept. A company can’t commit murder because absolutely no one would support
it within the company, or outside of it. When a group, for instance the American
Family Association, institutes a boycott against a company for having non-
exclusionary policies against LGBT workers, the company will not react with anti-gay
fervor because they have the potential to lose just as many, if not more LGBT and
allied customers.
The article asks the reader to “Imagine a corporation which
observes all the morals claims already noted—it does not
commit fraud or murder, it freely contributes from its profits to
various community ‘charities,’ its employment practices are
above reproach, and it sells quality products at a fair and
competitive price while securing for its investors a reasonable
return on their investment.” The article then asks about the
products or services offered by the company. Can a company
still be moral if they sell tobacco products, or junk food, or
paramilitary training? I say yes.
A companies practice may be ethical, even if they are in a
somewhat ‘shady’ industry. For example, a paper company may
not be the environments best friend, however if a company
 takes steps to use recycled content, and use new growth wood
from sustainably harvested areas, the company is taking steps
to mitigate the impact of operations. This is ethical. On the
opposite side of things, a company may be in an ethical
industry, but make unethical decisions. For example, a solar
panel manufacturer may purchase silicon from a company that
extracts raw materials from a war torn nation.
I feel a company is only as moral as required by law or by
consumers. If consumers need a product, such as oil, consumers
are willing to overlook issues such as exploration and extraction
activities in war torn nations, or questionable environmental
practices. Also, one must look at how the government reacts to
practices as well. The government Is supposed to represent the
people, and if the government doesn’t represent the proper
interests ethical conflicts may result.
The major fault I see with our economic system is not the corporation, with its
emphatic goal for profits, but rather the breakdown of political leaders who create
laws full of compromises that limit the possible breaches of ethics. If there are
issues that are so important, laws should prohibit, or at least place responsibility for
ethical breaches. I feel a good example of this was the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
There is a title in this act that requires the CEO and CFO of a company to certify the
accuracy of the financial statements. If they sign, but they have not reasonably
verified the financial statements, then they face individual fault.
The author also mentions the desire for persons to be
“professional.” People like to be perceived to be the best. I
remember watching this documentary on World Com, where
AT&T, then only a national carrier, strived to match the
profitability of WorldCom, when it turned out that WorldCom was
fudging numbers because they had little or no accounting
control. Bernie Ebbers, the CEO of the company, was obsessed
with being the successful CEO, even though he had little
expertise at running a large company, and was too concerned
with little details. AT&T was actually at the top of the game, with
huge profits from being a highly competitive player. AT&T was
the most ethical player, because the strived for the profit for
their shareholders, and provided services at a competitive price.
If they weren’t so competitive at the dawn of the internet era,
the United States may not have been at the forefront of the
revolution at that time, and access may still be limited today.
Although the goal of a company is to maximize profit, it doesn’t
always mean short term profit. Continuing with the internet
example, many places may not have direct internet connections
had companies not invested in networks. Competitive activity
has made many suburban communities and large rural towns
connected to the global network. The author notes that while
society has no need for profit making, people do. And while
people would prefer minimal profits, they have the option of not
using certain products. People use the products they do because
they are the best fit for themselves.