Philosophy Corporate Accountability Corporate accountability is an important subject in today’s society, in reading “Corporate Culpability Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines,” by Jennifer Moore it is obvious that she feels very strongly that corporations are not being held accountable for their actions. Jennifer argues that employees are often blamed for their actions, but are simply complying with their job. This is very insightful, and I find it very hard to disagree with her logic. She starts her argument by rejecting the idea that “it is sometimes difficult to locate the specific corporate agents responsible for a criminal act (171).” The rejection is not meant to infer that it is always easy to find the person at blame, but simply that this point has to do with prosecutors evidence and not the philosophical issue. Jennifer believes that because responsibility is spread throughout many different areas in the corporation, and decisions follow the same path, “there may in fact be no individual or group of individuals that is “justly to blame” for the crime (171).” The idea that many of us notice everyday, in many cases we as employees act blindly in accordance with policy, not exerting any control over the situations, and can therefore not be held accountable. In this respect the corporation is to be held accountable.
From my viewpoint, while I represent the company during work hours, and the company reaps the benefits of my good nature, they should also bear the responsibility of my actions. If I treat a customer rudely, the customer treats that as an indication of my character, and a reflection on the company. When a person enters employment with a certain company, that company is accepting responsibility for actions taken by the employee that are in accordance with company policy. The corporation should be held responsible by the government, while the corporation should hold it’s own employees responsible for their own actions. In response to the idea of a corporate responsibility, not an individual’s, many argue that if the corporation is not a person, how can it be held to the same moral guidelines as an individual? After all, don’t people make the decisions, and those same people make up the corporations, and should therefore be held accountable. This theory does not exclude the possibility of upper management being held responsible; rather it includes it for the sake of the company’s survival.
Microsoft’s Corporate Social Responsibility Essay
When we are talking about software, technology, computers involving manufacturers, licenses and supports, what is the company that’s the most popular and operates efficiently? Of course it is the Microsoft Company. Microsoft thought that technology can create occasions and opportunities for many people and organizatiobs around the world. So, they developed new technology that releases creativity, ...
What this theory excludes is that when holding an individual or group of individuals responsible for an action, each individual should be accountable for his or her actions alone. Since a business uses many different levels for decision-making as well as responsibility, shouldn’t the responsibility be spread between those levels? Why should an individual be held responsible for someone else’s actions? Rather the corporation should be held responsible for actions that were taken for its gain, and in congruence with it’s policies, procedures, and structures. “Corporate crime is not always the result of individual choice. Often, it is the product of goals, rules, policies and procedures that are features of the organization as an entity (178).”.
