![2[1].jpg](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/5abadf_f310244424a443b29215dadb17bba49b~mv2.jpg/v1/crop/x_5,y_0,w_1069,h_1080/fill/w_101,h_102,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/2%5B1%5D.jpg)
By Daisy Robinson
A study from the business advice platform, Comparisum, recently began to trend twitter with the claim that Jeff Bezos’ net worth was set to reach a staggering $1 trillion by 2026. Although Forbes has estimated that he still has quite a way to go, the founder of Amazon’s immense wealth is still indisputable. To put this amount of wealth into perspective, in 2019 the Social Security Administration revealed the average American man with a bachelor's degree will earn approximately $2.19 million in his lifetime, yet Bezos makes that in just under 15 minutes. One year on, his wealth has increased by an extra $22 billion, despite serious concerns being raised time and time again about the treatment of Amazon’s workers. The fact that global corporations continue to profit despite gross ethical negligence raises the question: is ethical business good business?
As Amazon has repeatedly demonstrated, global businesses can easily get away with abusing their social responsibility under our current capitalist structure, and blindness to these abuses has become a by-product of western consumer culture. Our demand for cheaper products means global corporations have to deliver these goods whilst still maximising their profit margins and to do this, companies have to reduce costs in the manufacturing stage of products. In Amazon’s case, this comes at the cost of worker exploitation.
Over the last few years, several articles have emerged criticising Amazon’s treatment of its workers, with a 2018 investigation by the Guardian revealing numerous cases of workers suffering from workplace accidents and being left homeless as a result.
Despite some small steps in the right direction such as when workers’ wages were raised to $15 in November of 2018, this still leaves workers in hazardous environments. As Amazon continued to soar to success, achieving it’s best Christmas in 2019 and driving its revenue that quarter up to $87 billion, worker Rina Cummings was one of many injured in Amazon’s American warehouses that year. After permanently injuring her back falling from a ladder, Cummings expected to receive 26 weeks compensation. Instead she received a letter of termination 5 weeks in, and leaving her bereft of income, she was left homeless.
It appears that Amazon, along with many other global companies, is stuck in the traditional business mindset of prioritizing their shareholders. This means they try to maximise their shares so that their investors get the maximum return on their investments, therefore making everyone more money at the workers expense. As 1976 Nobel prize winner Milton Friedman testified, the sole purpose of a business is to make as much money for stockholders as possible within the realms of the law and any social responsibilities should serve little more than window dressing to boost the business. Surely all is fair in love, war, and business, right?
We could say this attitude derives from a consequential approach to business, which is the idea that the success of a business is determined by its consequences. If a business is focused on pleasing as many people as possible as soon as possible, it will come at the cost of the workers. However, the flipside approach to this is a deontological one: the idea that a business’ goodness is held in its innate principles. For example, a deontologically good business would consider principles like honesty and transparency as duties they must follow, even if that costs them profit or popularity. To fulfill such duties, they would follow both legal regulations and create their own social and environmental policies to fully protect their workers.
For example, clothing manufacturer Everlane champions the well-being of its workers and provides the customer with a detailed cost breakdown of each garment, from transportation to materials, allowing full transparency between manufacturer and consumer. Whilst most consumers would prefer such transparency, investing in ethical practices isn’t cheap, and tends to create more expensive products. In a competitive capitalist society, companies face pressure to be bigger and better, and with consumer’s personal finances driving them to focus on cost over ethics, this creates an environment where ethical practices rarely blossom.
So how do businesses tread the line between flexible consideration of consequential actions and a duty to ethical practices? One theory comes in the form of the normative ethic, Rule Utilitarianism. Pioneered by John Stuart Mill, this theory suggests businesses should achieve long term happiness for all stakeholders opposed to short term pleasure. In terms of business, this points out that exploiting ethical responsibilities does churn out a hefty profit in the short term, benefiting the shareholders. However, through a combination of whistleblowing and increased awareness of mispractice, businesses risk being boycotted by the consumer in the future. Therefore, companies must see ethical practices as a stepping stone to long term, sustainable happiness. They may lose some profit in the short term, but in cases of global corporations, where this needs to happen most, this would barely make a dent. Furthermore, it establishes trust and respect from the consumer and ensures they’re committed to sticking with a brand in the long term.
Getting global brands to change is ultimately easier said than done, although it is possible. When Greenpeace Watchdogs called out Apple in 2005 for their use of toxic substances, Steve Jobs launched the ‘Greener Apple’ campaign. Over the next 5 years, arsenic and mercury was removed from all products, they published a tracking site for their carbon footprint and 100% of Apple’s offices and retail locations run on renewable energy. They are still not a perfect corporation but globalisation has brought about a universal awareness of global issues that makes it increasingly difficult for businesses like Apple and Amazon to get away with unethical practices. Therefore we must make a conscious effort to use this to our advantage. Ways this can be done include researching the brands we use, unlearning dependencies on global brands, and boycotting businesses that use unjust practises. It’s easy to underestimate the power of the individual, but as customers, we are one of the biggest cogs in the complex system of business ethics, and therefore it is up to us to reassess our buying habits and create a more sustainable and ethical consumer environment moving forward.
Comments