Moral responsibility is Â associated with the concepts of liability and accountability. “Corporations are formed, among other reasons, to limit the liability of owners or shareholders to the amount represented by their shares,”ť De George argues (97). But while each corporation utilizes certain societal resources, it should be accountable for them and liable for any negative affects of its business activity. Whether it is a system with corporate liability or with strict liability, it is stated that “immoral practices might develop in either system. If they do develop, such practices should be avoided”ť (105). This principle is especially significant when it refers to the corporations making business in other countries, where the peculiarities of the region should be considered and taken to account not only in developing marketing plans, but in establishing ethical grounds too. There are a lot of problems international interventions bring to a local community. Society becomes divided and the gap between social strata grows, corruption is worsened and positions are abused. Strong conflict and governance analysis is ultimately required. Appropriate safeguards require corporation’s absolute accountability. Their impact on local reforms, demographics, incomes and insecurity is learnt carefully to influence the international decisions on their aid-financed activities. No matter what the country of making business is, one of the most controversial concerns is ecology. Environmental issues make up a specific field of corporations’ responsibility and liability. It refers to the responsibility not to harm the environment shared by a corporation and its neighbors. Each corporation “has the obligation not to pollute the air and water beyond socially acceptable levels and to control its noise pollution similarly,’ De George (136) explains. It is underlined that total impact of business players is the thing that matters. And while the negative effect of one factory may be invisible, it contributes to the total negative effect and consequently should be prevented. That is a moral obligation of each corporation.
How can one argue that there is a right to employment (in answering this question you must explain how one may have a) a right to work, b) a right to life, and c) a right to respect;not necessarily in that order)? How can one argue for a right to a just wage?Â
In the United States all the citizens are provided with the right to work which is expressed in useful employment opportunities for everyone who is able, willing and seeking to work. This right is fixed in the 1946 Employment Act and supported by the 1948 American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. According to the Article XIV, every person has a right to work under appropriate conditions. However, there is no clear explanation on the conditions of employment, and that is why there are constant debates on the interpretation of the Declaration’s clauses. The right to work is also fixed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but, as De George stresses, this right is not respected or even recognized in the United States. This right is scrutinized in reference to the right to life, and working becomes a necessary condition for proper living. Without work one cannot get the necessary resources to satisfy his or her natural needs of different levels. In particular, the right to work is also associated with the right to respect. The society demands one to have a work in order to become a normal part of this society. If you want to live in the society and share its benefits and use its resources, you should also contribute to it by your own effort. That is a way to receive respect from others. Without work you are shamed. In the United States it is not illegal to be unemployed, but it is a social problem though. Still, being unemployed does not mean not to work. Many people do work without a stable working place. These are the representatives of creative professions like writers, painters, sculptors and so on. These are housewives who raise children and keep households. These are also those who have their own farms, but do not make a profit from their farming. That is why the right to work is not the same as the right to employment.
On the other hand, the right to employment is being protected at the state level, as those who are unemployed may get certain financial support from the state. However, “few American companies go as far as Japanese firms that guarantee workers employment after a certain trial period, much as university teachers achieve tenure after six years and thereafter can be fired only for incompetence, moral turpitude, or financial exigency on the part of the institution,”ť De George argues (152). What is more, full employment is nothing but an unreachable myth because the employers are always interested in unemployment. When there is an army of unemployed, the employers have enough options to choose the best and to pay the least for their profit. “There is no right to single-digit inflation, even though that is desirable. One can attempt both to implement rights and control inflation; but the difference between considering full employment simply as one goal among many and seeing the right to work as a valid individual claim against society is fundamental,”ť De George (424) explains.