Oliver F. Williams

The Ethics of Virtue: A Moral Theory for Marketing:

The moral theory of virtue ethics holds much promise for guiding the behavior of marketers. Although the origins of this theory can be traced back to Aristotle, it has not received as much emphasis as the teleological and deontological theories within marketing. In the ethics of virtue, traits such as compassion, fairness, loyalty, and openness shape a persons and an organizations vision. Several marketing situations confronted by Johnson & Johnson are used to illustrate the theory of virtue.

Catholic Social Teaching: A communitarian democratic capitalism for the new world order

Catholic Social Teaching has taken a remarkable turn with the May 1991 document on economic ethics,Centesimus Annus. During their one hundred year history, church documents were notable for their courageous championing of the rights of the least advantaged; they were much less distinguished for their understanding of how markets and incentives function in capitalism. Most business leaders admired church teaching for its compassion but had little respect for its competence. With this most recent document, however, there is a growing conviction that the church may have come of age in economic ethics. Even theWall Street Journal has celebratedCentesimus Annus. The article outlines the highlights of the document and its points of continuity with the tradition. Responses from business and the academy are also briefly considered.

Economic Imperatives and Ethical Values in Global Business

List of Acronyms. Foreword Rev. L. Sullivan. Preface. Part I: The Setting. 1. A Multinational Code of Conduct for South Africa. 2. The Emergence of the Anti-Apartheid Movement. 3. The First Step toward Implementation. 4. Shaping the Organization. 5. Measuring Progress. Part II: The Sullivan Principles in Action. 6. Eli Lilly & Company, Inc. 7. Ford Motor Corporation of South Africa. 8. Raising the Ante. 9. European and Other Codes of Conduct for the Companies Operating in South Africa. 10. Corporate Compliance with the Sullivan Principles. Part III: Conflicting Forces. 11. The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986. 12. The Anti-Apartheid Movement and Its Impact on United States Companies to Withdraw from South Africa. Part IV: The End Game. 13. Stampeding toward the Exit. 14. Repeal of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986. 15. The Rocky Road to Post-Apartheid South Africa. Part V: Epilogue. 16. Assessment of the Sullivan Principles As a Role Model for Developing International Codes of Conduct. About the Authors. Bibliography. Index.

Raising the Ante

Leon Sullivan’s rationale in creating the Principles was to have the United States companies play an important role in dismantling apartheid in South Africa. He recognized that, though perhaps unable and unwilling to exert direct political pressure on the South African government, the companies could nonetheless exert substantial albeit indirect pressure through the economic power they wielded.

The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986

The third of October 1986 was a momentous day in the history of the United States and also in the presidency of Ronald Reagan, one of the most popular United States presidents at home and abroad: both houses of Congress voted by significant majorities to override President Reagan’s veto and thereby enact into law the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act (CAAA) of 1986 (H.R. 4868). The law was intended to express strong United States opposition to the apartheid regime of the White-controlled minority government of South Africa. In addition to imposing economic and trade sanctions on that country, the law sought to bring worldwide political and economic pressure on South Africa’s government with a view to creating a democratic, nonracial society there.

Eli Lilly & Company, Inc.

Eli Lilly & Company was one of the earliest signatories to the Sullivan Principles.1 Joining the Sullivan Principles was, indeed, consistent with the company’s overall posture of being a socially responsive company with a long history of community involvement. The company also had the good fortune of not being initially subjected to the extreme external pressure from religious groups that confronted hosts of other large corporations in different parts of the United States. Indianapolis, Indiana—the location of the company’s headquarters—was not exactly a hot bed of social turmoil.

Corporate Compliance with the Sullivan Principles

The working of the Sullivan Principles in South Africa can be analyzed along two dimensions. The first relates to the Principles themselves: their content; their evolution and modification; their underlying rationale and social and moral import; and the goals they were designed to achieve. These questions were central in motivating us to write this book. In the current chapter, however, we focus on the second dimension of the working of the Principles. To wit, we consider the manner in which the Sullivan Principles were operationalized and implemented in South Africa. In particular, we examine the criteria by which projects were selected and managed, and the standards and processes that were created for monitoring and evaluating performance. We also attempt to evaluate operational efficiency, the achievement of goals (as measured by the auditing and monitoring instruments used in the process), and the impact the companies’ efforts when seen from the perspectives of the recipient groups.

The Anti-Apartheid Movement and Its Impact on United States Companies to Withdraw from South Africa

The strategic thrust of the anti-apartheid movement in the United States was to force United States companies to disinvest in South Africa and to cease doing any business in that country. This strategy had widespread support among the anti-apartheid groups in the United States, and it was also supported by a vast majority of Black. South Africans. As companies began to adopt the strategy of divestment, critics pointed out its defects, only to be largely ignored.

Assessment of the Sullivan Principles As a Role Model for Developing International Codes of Conduct

The promulgation of the Sullivan Principles was a watershed event in a drive that had been gathering momentum—primarily in the United States, but also in many other industrialized countries of the world—for enhancing the responsibility of multinational corporations.1 This drive was a reflection of the worldwide operations of such corporations, coupled with a concern for the worldwide consequences of how those operations were conducted. In its most basic form, the notion of enhanced responsibility has three components: MNCs must deal with all of their stakeholders, and not merely stockholders, in a fair and equitable manner. This concern has special relevance when the operations of MNCs involve developing countries or poor people (anywhere); that is, involve those who lack the necessary economic and political power to bargain with MNCs on more equitable terms. MNCs must act as positive and proactive agents of change through the use of their enormous economic power—even, when necessary, against the express wishes or prevailing customs of host countries. The goal is to protect and foster basic human rights and democratic values that are the foundation both of MNCs economic strength and of their prosperity in their home countries. MNCs must not consider enhanced responsibility and the actions thereby required either as discretionary or as a necessary inconvenience (for example, simply as a cost of doing business). Instead, the standards of enhanced responsibility must be treated as de minimus standards of behavior, compliance with which must be mandatory, transparent, and subject to external validation.

The First Step toward Implementation

The initial announcement of the Principles generated widespread press coverage, both for their substance and for the unusual nature of the action to be undertaken. It was unprecedented that CEOs from some of the largest United States corporations would voluntarily and collectively commit themselves to an externally created set of guidelines for their operations. It was also significant that the Principles were adopted despite their explicit ethical foundation in human rights. More than corporations in any other part of the world, large United States-based corporations have consistently and vociferously opposed mixing ethical or even political criteria in their economic decision making. Corporations are viewed as essentially private institutions that are designed for economic activities undertaken for the benefit of their owners; namely, the shareholders. Mixing ethical and political rationales with economic decision making is therefore viewed not only as contrary to the shareholders’ economic interests, but also as detrimental to larger issues of public policy in a democratic society. That these very corporations use all types of political and other arguments when doing so advances their economic interests is beside the point and only serves to support those who would argue not to use private economic organizations for broader social and political purposes, no matter how justified those purposes might appear at a particular time. the Principles were to be implemented in a foreign country where they would be in conflict with local laws, thus raising the issue of intervention in another countrys internal affairs. the implementation of the Principles, when limited to United States companies alone, might have put them at a competitive disadvantage with respect to their competitors, not only from South Africa, but also from Japan and Europe. senior executives committed themselves to the Principles despite what was, in many cases, a gross disproportion between the small size of the companies’ South African (versus worldwide) operations and the extensive burdens senior management took on in connection with the Principles. Indeed, our analysis shows that it was the personal involvement of senior corporate executives that made possible not just the formulation and adoption of the Principles, but also their rapid implementation.