3 Issues at the Intersection of Business and Ethics
In a recent conversation with Wharton Global Youth about business ethics, the Wharton School’s Amy Sepinwall said she had observed today’s youth approaching business as a force for good, a way to make the world better.
As you begin to think critically about how and where you want to use your business acumen and skills to influence change, here are a few Wharton-informed issues at the intersection of business and ethics – where influencers in all areas of organizations are navigating the balance between profit-driven goals and what is best and just for society.
👩🏽💼 Boardroom diversity. Promoting diversity and inclusion in the workplace is a cornerstone of corporate social responsibility. And in the broader conversation of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), corporate governance plays a critical role. Corporate governance describes the rules, practices and processes used to direct and manage a company, often overseen by a board of directors. Research suggests that a diverse boardroom reflects the experiences of customers, employees and other stakeholders, and ensures that a range of perspectives drives decision-making.
Before retiring as a top executive of Booz Allen Hamilton, a management and information technology firm, Penn grad Lloyd Howell Jr. told Wharton Business Daily, “At our board level, we have five female directors out of a total of 11. In our executive management team, we have six women out of a total of 10. And people of color are also a part of that. We have two African Americans on the board. Certainly, we’re looking to improve upon that, not just for the African American community, but also for other underrepresented classes.”
Mary-Hunter “Mae” McDonnell, an associate professor of management at Wharton, revealed the research behind these types of diverse teams during a corporate governance conversation with Wharton’s dean, Erika James. (Wharton Global Youth has streamlined this and other ESG topics for high school students in our Explore Business mini-sites.)
“What the research suggests is that diversity improves the quality and accuracy of teams’ decision-making,” noted Dr. McDonnell. “If you walk into a team and everyone has a similar background as you, then you’re going to assume that everyone understands the issues similar to the way you do and assume it will be easy to sell your point of view. But when you walk into a room where everyone has a different background than you, then you know that you might have to do some convincing. You might meet some people who see the situation differently than you. So, you prepare more before the meeting and you deliberate more during the meeting. Diversity is improving the performance of every team member. That’s absolutely part of what’s going on in linking board diversity to the quality of boards’ decision makers. You’re expanding that diversity of thought in the room and you’re making the board prepare harder and deliberate harder around the hard issues.” Watch the video HERE.
“The first thing that firms frequently are but should be doing is looking to manage and measure their own emissions from their on-site operations and their purchases of electricity. How are we as a firm emitting greenhouse gases during our production processes…and could we purchase renewable energy to power our operations?” – Dr. Sarah Light, Wharton Professor
👨🏼💻 Technological innovation. As new technologies are created and enhanced, issues arise about their impact on people, the planet and society. Are these techs amplifying existing biases and inequalities? Are they threatening safety and security (driverless cars!)? Are they taking opportunities away from people that might lead to income inequality? Questions around artificial intelligence, which has been developing rapidly, lead this debate. Scott A. Snyder, a senior fellow at Wharton, has said, “As AI becomes an integral part of our lives, it’s imperative to examine the ethical and responsible principles associated with its presence in society.”
In an episode of Knowledge@Wharton’s Ripple Effect podcast, Wharton’s Kartik Hosanagar said, “AI is going to be like electricity, or like the steam engine or computers, meaning the kinds of technology that change the world forever, that change humanity forever.”
And yet, ethically speaking, is AI progressing too fast? “This is a technology that is unlike other technologies we’ve seen in terms of the rate of change and progress,” noted Dr. Hosanagar. “Especially given its implications for simple things like employment, employability, all the way to things like use of AI in warfare, or AI going out of control, there is a range of concerns here. I think the concerns are real.”
The solutions to these heavy ethical questions are perhaps more long-term, he added. “What needs to happen is investments in education at school levels, where people are trained to understand AI, to understand things like deep fakes, to understand issues around ethics when building technology,” suggested Dr. Hosanagar. “This is not something you solve in six months. This is something you solve over 10 years and change curriculum. You need to retrain engineers. You need to retrain managers. You need to also retrain your congressmen and senators and all of the politicians and lawmakers.”
You can listen to more of Professor Hosanagar’s thoughts on AI, including its impact on the labor market and potential bias in algorithms here.
🌳 Environmental impact. Where the planet and ethics meet, you will find a concoction of acronyms like ESG (Environmental, Social & Governance factors) and CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility). Behind this language of business dwells an important priority that also involves ethical implications: environmental sustainability. Companies play a critical role in both contributing to and helping to solve threats to our planet, namely the climate crisis. But are they making the necessary investments toward carbon neutrality and other solutions? Wharton’s ESG Initiative released a research report looking at how well the business world is doing with its social responsibility practices.
Turns out, noted Wharton’s Witold Henisz, vice dean of the ESG Initiative, that companies have made “substantial progress” in integrating social responsibility into business operations – with an important exception. Fewer than half of the 400 employees surveyed reported that their organization had a climate-action plan.
What might that climate-action plan look like for businesses making ethical environmental decisions? Sarah Light, a Wharton legal studies and business ethics professor, spoke with Erika James about how companies are responding to the calls to address climate change during a broader discussion on ESG: Tackling the Climate Crisis.
“Business firms are indeed responding to the call to address the climate crisis…overall I think firms should be doing three things,” said Professor Light. “The first thing that firms frequently are but should be doing is looking to manage and measure their own emissions from their on-site operations and their purchases of electricity. How are we as a firm emitting greenhouse gases during our production processes…and could we purchase renewable energy to power our operations? The second thing that many firms are doing is looking beyond their on-site operations to their value chain…for example, Walmart has adopted Project Gigaton to attempt to reduce more than 1 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases from their global value chain…The third step, that not all firms have [achieved], is to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to advocating for public policies that will support a transition to a net zero economy by 2050.” Learn more about issues related to climate change and ethics in this Ripple Effects podcast conversation with Dr. Light.
Conversation Starters
What is the value of having a diverse corporate boardroom?
Dr. Hosanagar says that addressing ethical issues related to AI will take time, not 6 months. What do you think can be done to slow the pace of tech innovation and the issues that arise as a result of it?
Dr. Light says that firms are responding to the call for climate action, even though some may be slower than others. What example of climate action in business is most inspiring to you and why?
Thank you, Diana Drake, for an insightful discussion on the intersection of business and ethics. The issues highlighted here underscore the critical role of ethical decision-making in shaping the future of business.
The value of having a diverse corporate boardroom cannot be overstated. A diverse board brings together individuals with different backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives, leading to more comprehensive and robust decision-making processes. This diversity helps in identifying and mitigating risks, understanding diverse customer bases, and fostering innovation. As Dr. McDonnell notes, diversity improves the quality and accuracy of teams’ decision-making by encouraging thorough preparation and deliberation. This leads to better outcomes for the company and its stakeholders, ensuring that a range of voices and perspectives are considered in critical business decisions.
Addressing ethical issues related to AI is indeed a long-term endeavor, as Dr. Hosanagar suggests. To slow the pace of tech innovation and address arising issues, several steps can be taken:
1. **Regulatory Frameworks**: Implementing stringent regulations and ethical guidelines for AI development and deployment can help ensure responsible innovation. Governments and international bodies need to establish clear rules that prioritize safety, fairness, and transparency.
2. **Education and Training**: Investing in education to improve understanding of AI among engineers, managers, policymakers, and the general public is crucial. This includes incorporating AI ethics into school curriculums and professional training programs.
3. **Collaborative Governance**: Creating forums for collaboration between tech companies, policymakers, and civil society can facilitate the development of balanced and inclusive AI policies. Regular dialogue and cooperation can help align technological advancements with societal values.
4. **Public Awareness**: Raising public awareness about the potential risks and benefits of AI can lead to more informed and active participation in policy discussions. Empowering individuals with knowledge can drive demand for ethical AI practices.
One inspiring example of climate action in business is Walmart’s Project Gigaton. This ambitious initiative aims to reduce more than 1 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases from the company’s global value chain by 2030. What makes this effort particularly inspiring is its comprehensive approach: Walmart is not only focusing on its direct operations but also engaging suppliers and stakeholders across its entire value chain. By setting specific targets and collaborating with a vast network of partners, Walmart is demonstrating that large-scale environmental impact is achievable through collective effort. This project serves as a powerful example of how businesses can lead the way in tackling climate change while driving industry-wide change and encouraging others to adopt similar practices.
In conclusion, the intersection of business and ethics is a vital area of focus for the future. The discussions on boardroom diversity, technological innovation, and environmental impact highlight the need for thoughtful and responsible leadership. By addressing these issues with a commitment to ethical principles, businesses can drive positive change and create a more just and sustainable world.
What caught my eye instinctively as I glossed over article title after article title, looking for something that would hook my short attention span, was the combination of ‘business’ and ‘ethics’ together. The idea you presented, that business, a concept closely associated with indifference and emotional disconnection, had a moral code was intriguing to me. The observation you made, of today’s youth wanting to use business as a force to make the world a better place, stuck with me as I dove deeper into the article.
How can we, as selfish and egocentric humans, trust ourselves to work consistently toward a common goal? Perhaps the only answer is that we can trust that the majority of us will share a desire to make the world a better place, and the first step to doing so is through listing blatantly the issues we have at hand and a solution to fix them, as you’ve done.
When the idea that all opinions hold equal weight in a boardroom is challenged, both the moral ethicality of the business and the success of the business itself are thrown into jeopardy. I’ve always understood that the benefit of diversity in opinion-made decisions comes from it being the morally right thing to do, but, with a quote from Dr. McDonnell, you’ve also pointed out how, objectively, the quality of the overall decision made by the board members is also improved. Ultimately, it is the contribution of all of our experiences and opinions, no matter how small or underrepresented, that leads to a better world.
As business gradually veers toward the artificial intelligence workplace, its abilities unimaginable and seemingly limitless, questions on the ethics of developing it without some sort of precautions or limits on its progression rate rise as well. Some laugh away these concerns, but I believe that these are real issues that should be dealt with seriously – the unknown is dangerous and should not be played with recklessly.
Finally, the largest problem humanity faces today is its attitude toward taking care of the world we live in. How can we collectively work together to address the worldwide issue of climate change and its effects? The morals behind using businesses not only to further advance technology and making the world a better place economically, but decreasing our carbon imprint on the earth and making sure that we heal the damage we’ve already done is essential to maintaining an ethical business.
Although the business world may seem disconnected from any ethical or moral code, seeming to remain in an emotional impartiality toward mere commerical and egocentric gain, you’ve opened my eyes to the idea that we, as businesspeople, must make our decisions with ethics closely in mind. Thank you, Diana Drake.
Thank you, Diana, for your insightful and exploration of these critical topics. In today’s dynamic corporate landscape, the convergence of profit and principle demands visionary leadership capable of navigating complex ethical challenges with unwavering integrity and innovative solutions. Your comprehensive analysis of boardroom diversity, technological advancements like AI, and pressing environmental imperatives raises a crucial question. Are these factors the cause of this transformative shift, or are they merely responding to deeper societal changes?
Firstly, boardroom diversity transcends mere representation; it fundamentally shapes decision-making. Diverse perspectives are foundational to robust and ethical corporate governance, challenging norms and enriching decision outcomes. Yet, achieving true inclusivity remains hindered by entrenched resistance and inertia, with many boardrooms still lacking diversity, stifling innovation and perpetuating inequality despite strides made by firms like Booz Allen Hamilton.
Additionally, technological advancements, particularly artificial intelligence, offer unprecedented efficiencies but also pose ethical dilemmas. AI’s rapid progression presents risks such as bias entrenchment and exacerbating societal inequalities. Addressing these challenges requires a nuanced approach and collective foresight, often lacking in current societal structures.
Furthermore, environmental sustainability emerges as a critical imperative. The stark reality that less than half of surveyed companies have climate-action plans underscores the urgency for systemic change. Businesses must not only manage emissions but also overhaul value chains and advocate for policy reform to achieve a sustainable future.
Despite these challenges, there is cause for optimism. The integration of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors into corporate strategies signals a pivotal shift where ethical considerations are central to business success. Crucially, this transformation is driven by the conscientious actions of students and young generations, whose commitment to sustainability is reshaping corporate priorities and inspiring meaningful change.
In conclusion, while navigating the intersection of business and ethics poses formidable challenges, it also presents opportunities for transformative progress. Today’s youth, equipped with critical thinking and a commitment to justice, are poised to lead this change. By redefining the role of business to harmonize profit with purpose, we can navigate the ethical complexities ahead and emerge into a brighter, more equitable future.
The intersection of business and ethics, as discussed by Wharton Global Youth, highlights critical issues that resonate deeply with today’s evolving societal and environmental landscapes. Boardroom diversity, for instance, isn’t just about representation—it’s about enhancing decision-making by incorporating diverse perspectives that reflect broader stakeholder interests. Professor Mary-Hunter McDonnell’s insights underscore the tangible benefits of diverse teams in improving corporate governance and strategic decision-making processes. Similarly, the ethical implications of technological innovation, particularly in AI development, pose profound challenges from bias in algorithms to potential societal impacts like job displacement. These discussions prompt reflection on the ethical responsibilities of businesses to proactively address these issues, not just through internal practices but also through advocacy for sustainable practices and policies. It’s clear that navigating these ethical waters requires a multifaceted approach that balances profitability with societal well-being and environmental stewardship.
The workforce evolves more and more to adapt to society’s needs and demands, and we have seen many cases where the people themselves demand for change from high-grossing, exclusive companies to exemplify the public’s influence in business’ morale. But the question is if companies themselves know what is “best” for both binaries: company and society, and how subjective is “best”? Ethically, how can social responsibility be built into companies by us, the mere public? These are burning questions my mind dabbles with, as I dived into Diana Drake’s dissertation of the 3 interconnected issues of business and ethics, all linked by human action.
This is interesting, as even the topic of environmental sustainability has a part with company ethics. As an inspiring business woman in the future myself, I still question the progress of social and ethical issues in the workforce, despite every sectors’ having its flaws, but personally I still think the business sector is the most needed to be worked on. As Drake lists these topics, I have major insights on how this affects social ethics and responsibility, and how we can address what is “best”.
In terms of boardroom diversity, statistics listed out are interestingly put, as females are put as “majority” in these decisions, while the lack in racial diversity is still a topic to be worked on. Yes, it is important to have a gender-inclusive environment, but the lack of not only African American diversity on the board, but also other populations such as Asian, Hispanic, or Native is crucial for true “Boardroom diversity”. It is important to recognize that perspectives derive strongly from individual experiences that vary per gender, but rising origins such as one’s ethnic or racial identity is what truly shapes our thought and argument system. This is a call towards various corporate boards with the brand of “diversity” within members: Diverse representation should not only be for reputation to the public and satisfaction, diversity in boards should be made for social responsibility and balances on decision-making that define what truly is ethical considering all aspects of both popular and underrepresented groups without the need of necessary public approval.
The second issue at hand in business ethics that the author dabbles on is the concern of technological innovation, and in realistic terms, the issues at hand are grander than just the section given to them in the article. Something I would like to point out on Hosnagar’s commentary in the Ripple Effect podcast is the repetition of “retraining” different groups of people, being a bit counter effective. While it is necessary to retrain the principal groups of AI that are at fault for ethical faults, it is also beyond the builder and to the user, to understand the ethical faults when using AI for different contexts. The pace of AI growth will not slow down, but it is especially important (and I personally agree with Hosanagar’s perspective on this) to retrain politicians and lawmakers. Ethical frameworks are the only ones that will limit AI to align to societal standards and values, nothing beyond that. Without restrictions, AI itself won’t limit what it is capable of.
And lastly, environmentally, businesses have been tackled towards sustainable methods, which is something I personally see more optimistically compared to the last two issues presented, but still with action left to do. I do recognize Drake’s better exposition on this last issue with “climate-action plans” and various projects of reducing waste and net zero economies. I see a more sustainable future in regards to businesses’ environmental protection and responsibility out of all other issues, but it is a topic that must be handled with integrity and real plans, as ‘rapid’ climate conservation cannot be ethically plausible with inaction or even a rush of action with small changes for mere public satisfaction. We need large implementation plans, in example Walmart’s Project Gigatron, for companies to follow true climate sustainability, and true sustainability intentions regardless of public recognition of them or not, for an “ideal” ethical business world.
Though we would never be able to grasp the gauge of true business ethics due to many companies’ lack of transparency, in an ideal integer position, a company wouldn’t have to proof the public its ethical practices as it would rather be reflected in the long-term through worker satisfaction, compensation and quality of products; this is rather a topic tackled at companies’ own reflection of their social obligation and ideally, ‘intersect’ company goals and success with public and social honesty and responsibility. Being able to redefine what should be companies’ moral duties and ideally balance the idea of what’s “best” between ethical and profitable actions, is what, I think, we will have to prospect from not only a more transparent but conscientious business sector in the future.
Hello Gabriela,
Your insightful commentary on this article was deeply appreciated. One thing that I feel strongly about is your stance on boardroom diversity, which I fully agree with. Your point about expanding diversity beyond gender to include a wider range of racial and ethnic backgrounds is crucial. True diversity should indeed encompass various life experiences and perspectives, which can lead to more balanced and socially responsible decision-making in corporate governance.
However, I’d like to offer a different perspective on your view of environmental sustainability in business. While you see this area more optimistically compared to the other issues presented, I believe we should approach it with more urgency and skepticism. Many companies engage in
“Greenwashing”–making superficial changes or grand promises without substantial action. The fact that less than half of the organizations surveyed had climate-action plans, as mentioned in the original article, is deeply concerning. We need to push for more accountability and concrete, measurable actions from businesses in addressing climate change.
You’ve observed that “rapid climate change conservation cannot be ethically plausible with inaction or even a rush of action with small changes or mere public satisfaction”, and I agree—I think you’ve really encapsulated the delicate balance businesses must strike between making meaningful progress and avoiding hasty ineffective measures. Building on this, I’d add that we need to establish robust, independent auditing systems to verify companies’ environmental claims and progress. This could help ensure that initiatives like Walmart’s Project Gigaton are truly effective and not just corporate PR exercises.
While some companies are making strides towards transformative climate change combat, many are still caught in the trap of incremental changes that fail to address the scale of the crisis. We need to see more businesses adopting science-based targets aligned with the Paris Agreement (an international treaty on climate change) and implementing comprehensive strategies that touch every aspect of their operations – from supply chains to product design. This could involve radical innovations in circular economy practices, significant investments in renewable energy, and a fundamental rethinking of business models to prioritize long-term sustainability over short-term profits. Moreover, businesses should be actively advocating for stronger environmental policies and regulations, recognizing that a stable climate is essential for long-term economic prosperity. It’s crucial that we cultivate a business culture where environmental stewardship is seen not as a constraint or a PR exercise, but as a core driver of innovation, efficiency, and competitive advantage in a rapidly changing world.
Thank you, Gabriela, for sharing your discerning comment. Your ability to critically analyze complex business ethics issues and propose thoughtful solutions is inspiring. Your reminder that diversity goes further than just gender emphasizes the importance of incorporating multiple unique perspectives in the boardroom. Voices like yours are crucial in shaping a more ethical and responsible business landscape for the future.
“3 Issues at the Intersection of Business and Ethics.” It’s a shame that such a topic exists, let alone be discussed so frequently.
In our globalized economy, understanding and recognizing the views of various cultures and societies is vital. A diverse boardroom is the truest test in internal negotiations. As Dr. McDonnell brilliantly stated, “If you walk into a team and everyone has a similar background as you, then you’re going to assume that everyone understands the issues similar to the way you do.” Management needs critics to hold them accountable: the infamous Heineken light beer ad comes to mind. Why not these critics be your colleagues themselves?
I vividly remember a class discussion on this very topic. Our school clubs were heavily male-dominated, which led to careless misjudgments in event planning and media work. The lack of various perspectives and viewpoints ultimately crumbled one of our beloved internal events – failing to appreciate alternative viewpoints and perspectives from a singularly represented demographic.
Yet, one aspect not many have commented on is forced boardroom diversity. With unwritten requirements for diverse boardrooms and positive inclusivity being directly correlated to the consumer’s image of the brand, are there cases where they take this too far?
While difficult to depict, there are instances where firms cover red flags by fulfilling other ‘quotas’ or social metrics. This may be through additional corporate social responsibility or reducing environmental impact, yet may be as poor as forcing minorities into boardrooms yet not allowing a genuine say in the matter. All this does is fulfill the societal expectations of equality, progressiveness, and diversity without having the improvement these changes should bring out.
Rather than just meeting boardroom diversity and social responsibilities, we must focus on the intent and purpose of these businesses. An action must be genuine to have value.
Sanjay, your standpoint with this article is something I resonate with completely. Yes, Diana Drake’s article brings in many interesting points on issues lying in between business and ethics, such as the idea of diversity leading to perspective variety, the uncontrolled growth of AI possibly being threatening to the future, and the ignorance of the climate crisis by the world’s leading emitters. However, like your opinion, these goals are being pushed too far, sometimes instead leading to detriment for the hidden agendas of others.
The way you’ve portrayed this is extremely accurate considering how various programs look past true skill and necessity to fulfill the diversity outlook for a better reputation. Yet these issues are also translatable into the other two topics in one way or another. In AI, people argue that it will lead to massive layoffs and job reduction- yet this situation is not so different from the Industrial Revolution, where new jobs were created in the situation of enhanced technology, yet many overlook this to save their agendas. This is also portrayed within the climate crisis, where the board overlooks the true, increasing environmental decay our world is in to fill their own pockets. The main problem on the border of business and ethics can be summarized into one: “Where should the line for personal fulfillment stop for society.”
Similar to your point on how an “action must be genuine to have value” and Diana’s statement on how inclusivity within people with power can lead to innovation. Someone with the power to create change must act.
My science teacher once brought up a fact while he lectured us about global warming: he’s old. Because he won’t live long enough to see the full consequences that these generations’ unsustainable actions have on the environment, he doesn’t care as much as he should to take action. Businessmen have a similar mindset, as fewer than half of 400 surveyed employees claimed their companies were taking action to make their workspace more eco-friendly. To state it blatantly, companies don’t care, because their CEOs won’t be the people facing the consequences.
Boardroom diversity, technological innovation, and environmental impact, despite being vastly different topics, all share the same parallels of “my (the company’s) profit vs. everyone else.” Having a diverse workforce, hiring more people to take jobs like customer service or teachers compared to computers, and switching to eco-friendly technologies may be more costly and time-consuming, and that is exactly why businessmen avoid taking action to do these, despite how much value they could bring. Instead, they focus on the fastest and most efficient way to get profit. Interestingly enough, taking a narrow-minded beeline towards more cash could actually have the opposite effect. Using unsustainable machinery could give you a bad reputation, and so could avoiding a diverse workplace. After Disney became less of a studio and more of a business, they’ve been commonly know to have failed in their 100th year anniversary movie “Wish.” Companies that choose to be selfish might find themselves losing revenue as people turn to more sustainable or inclusive businesses.
After my analysis, coming from a purely objective point of view, I’ve come to realize that the goal towards profit may not always be the most efficient machinery or the cheapest kind of artificial intelligence. Sometimes, taking risks and investing in sustainable technology, human employees, and creating a diverse workplace would be better. However, this certainly doesn’t mean that those options are perfect for every company and should be taken to the extreme. Instead, companies should take effort in finding their perfect equilibrium to maximize their profits, from both their technology’s efficiency and the happiness of their customers and employees.
Sophie, I have to admit that at times, I’ve found myself prone to the same mindset that your science teacher holds. It can be too tempting to prioritize ease above all, but the threat of the future keeps me on my toes. I especially resonated with the last few points you made about reaching a perfect equilibrium.
The idea that what works for one company may not work for another cannot be stressed enough. Every business has gone through unique trials and lessons, there’s no single formula that determines prosperity. There are too many companies trying to replicate the successful efforts of their rivals, while countless others seek to copy-and-paste the same strategies that have worked in the past. The world, and consumer markets specifically, are extremely variable, and what captures society’s interest one day may become obsolete the next.
I found your mention of Disney and their movies like “Wish” to be a great example of an inability to reach equilibrium. While it is refreshing to see Disney add more diversity to their productions in recent years, at times it seems forced or simply inserted to appease critics. A common source of contention has been Disney’s approach to remakes of the classic fairy tales written by the Brothers Grimm. In my opinion, it would be more genuine to create brand-new stories in accordance with inclusivity rather than modernizing tales that have already been associated with and appreciated within spheres. Disney has been criticized for failing to correctly capture the cultures they’ve tried to showcase, which highlights a lack of dedication to true representation. As a large-scale business, it is understandable that they are searching for ways to captivate their consumers and maximize earnings, but in the process, it creates the perception that they view ethics through the lens of profit and exposure. When the idea of a diverse workplace is only used to create an image, we find ourselves back at square one.
If a business prioritizes inner improvement, diversity is bound to follow. Even without taking diversity into account at all, if a business analyzes its weaknesses and strengths, it will understand that the perspectives of those hailing from different backgrounds are significant. While I do wholeheartedly support inclusion in the workplace, at times I’ve gotten the sense that some companies have started to regard identity in terms of how much it can boost public image rather than the actual internal contributions that are present.
Thank you to Diana Drake for speaking up against the issues at the intersection of business and ethics. Although these issues are often found within successful businesses, they are still not discussed enough.
Starting with boardroom diversity: Companies often proudly state how their DEI is continuously improving, however, that usually goes only for the slightly lower positions. At board level, most of the positions will still be taken by old white men.
These directors will believe that it is better for the company if the leaders at board level look similar to each other and think alike. This way, it is much easier for them to convince their colleagues to agree to an idea.
As Dr. McDonnell explained— these directors will have to work harder to convince other leaders to support their ideas if the other leaders look different than them. It makes the directors think that their colleagues might have different perspectives about an issue because they come from a different background. Overall, diversity in a company’s leadership leads to everyone improving their performance, since they try harder to find a strong reason for their plans.
Even though DEI can help with a company’s success, many businesses continue to exclude certain groups of people in their leadership positions. One reason for this may be that companies are so used to their out-dated system of only hiring white men for their top spots, that it seems “too complicated and difficult to change.”
Another important issue: the growing use of new technologies in businesses. New technologies, such as artificial intelligence, which has progressed immensely in the past few years, certainly bring benefits but also new issues onto the table.
Artificial intelligence is already starting to have a huge effect on the labor market: AI is able to replace so many workers––increasing rates of unemployment. So many people now have the fear of being replaced by a robot in the near future, and there are not many jobs that AI is unable to replace. This puts the majority of people at risk of losing their source of income and a job that they may be passionate about. Along with these concerns the most important question follows: Is AI progressing too fast?
Our concerns shouldn’t be overlooked as artificial intelligence does pose a threat to many careers and this is an issue growing at an alarming rate. More awareness should be raised about the problems that come along with the use of AI, and more people should be educated about it. Schools should moderate their curriculums to include teaching the new generation about AI, and adults should be educated about these concerns as well.
The final issue Ms. Drake discusses is how businesses are not keeping to their promise of saving the environment. Large businesses contribute tremendously to global warming due to their large factories, and actions should be taken to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from these factories.
Many companies support and advocate the plan to reach a net zero economy by 2050, however, they are not showing any signs of contribution to this idea. Professor Light states how these companies should “put their money where their mouth is,” and I completely agree with this statement. Instead of only publicly advocating for these environmental causes, companies should start making actual contributions to our environment.
No doubt, I had a great time reading this piece. The topic of how ethics and business are related can never be settled. Diversity, inventiveness, and influence are critical factors to take into account while balancing profit and morality. It’s clear that promoting an inclusive environment is the cornerstone of corporate social responsibility and a company’s reputation is enhanced by having representation from a variety of backgrounds but diversity in the boardroom may have unforeseen effects. Diverse teams are able to enhance decision making by offering a range of viewpoints. Wharton’s Mary-Hunter “Mae” McDonnel explained how a diverse team led to better preparation and a better overall performance. Companies are also able to find the best candidates for problem solving that requires creativity. Lloyd Howell Jr. mentioned that Booz Allen Hamilton has a board with significant numbers of both female and African American representatives. Market understanding is also important for a company to expand as it allows people of all backgrounds to have an input in product development efforts or marketing. It is also true however that by prioritizing diversity to meet standards without considering one’s qualifications thoroughly can have unexpected consequences, such as lowering team productivity and creating a perception of tokenism. This ultimately undermines the intended purpose.
Diana Drake’s insights on the amalgamation of business and ethics show essential areas we must improve to foster a more positive societal impact. As we discuss these issues, it is evident that goals based on ethical considerations are just as important as balancing profit-driven ones.
What I found very compelling is promoting diversity and inclusion at corporate levels to lead to a more thoughtful decision-making process. Dr. Mary-Hudner McDonnel’s research underscores how diversity increases the quality and accuracy of team decisions, which resonated with me. In my experience, having people of different ethnicities and cultural backgrounds allowed for unique ideas to form and even made the brainstorming process more effective. In my own experience, I have witnessed the power of diverse teams throughout my class in AP Language. The diverse perspectives enriched discussions and led to innovative solutions that might not have been considered otherwise. For example, during my peer’s presentation about advertisements, I could comment on the specific design of an article of clothing, similar to traditional Chinese Hanfu. The similarities between the styles in the current fashion industry draw impressions from traditional Chinese clothing, especially in designer fashion with unique robe and suit designs. After that statement, many classmates started comparing their unique cultural clothing to the clothing in different ads in the presentation. We also analyzed the impact of these clothing on the environment. We realized that many traditional clothing styles have less effect on the environment than modern clothing. Traditional clothing lasts longer and contains more natural ingredients like wool and cotton.
As stated before, ethical considerations are also important regarding the environmental impact of the whole situation. The aim of reducing greenhouse gases through Walkmart’s Project Gigaton is particularly inspiring. A personal project that aligns with this is my project in this year’s AP Lang class. We focused on the photography of the Documerica project, which the EPA, or Environmental Protection Agency, created. Photographing multiple instances of plastic waste, pollution, and other hardships can spread awareness of the difficulties that the Earth faces due to our pollution. Although not directly impacting the environment, the EPA has shown us the effects of pollution. These photos act as a call to action to prevent it further.
To conclude, future business leaders will approach their roles with a deep sense of ethical responsibility. Integrating diverse perspectives, ethical innovation, and environmental protection are not just business strategies but also essential components of a sustainable future. In my future endeavors, I want to use my business skills to influence a positive environmental change, considering businesses’ ethical problems. We can build a world where profit and purpose coexist by continually questioning and addressing the moral implications of our business decisions.
I am sorry for submitting this late; I had some technical issues. Could this perhaps comment be considered for the first round? Thank you for your consideration, and I am sorry for the inconvenience.
I share my peers’ passion for making sure we create a fine world for the present and future generations to live in and thus maintaining ethical practices across all fields is an important topic to me. I’d like to approach several relevant issues from an alternative viewpoint to hopefully address the roadblocks that are still standing in the way of embedding social responsibility in one’s business practices.
The article talks mainly about diversity, which is just one letter of the DEI framework.
The current conversation around boardroom diversity is much about satisfying demands at a superficial level rather than addressing the core of the issue. The way Howell and a majority of businesses talk about addressing their social responsibilities is purely through numerical quotas, which in my opinion is disingenuous to the cause. Diversity hires are but tokens to satisfy the quota rather than an authentic movement to allow more perspectives in the decision-making process. How does that guarantee that the voices of minority group members are heard? That their opinion gets to hold the same weight as the white men in the room? Businesses should take steps to push back biases and actively incorporate real diversity.
Businesses are still limited in their definition, scope, and understanding of what diversity is. Having a balanced gender ratio is a step in the right direction but businesses also need to address other diversity factors such as economic background, race, age, … A boardroom that has very limited perspective to what diversity is may not have the capacity to fully incorporate the extent of perspectives needed to encapsulate all matters at hand. I believe it is crucial for business executives to educate themselves and consider perspectives of people outside the board, too. It should be a continuous effort for everyone to expand their views in a more authentic, inclusive way.
Furthermore, equity is a long standing issue that needs to be addressed beyond the bare minimum compliance. In a study conducted by Elvira and Zatzick in 2002, they found that whites are less likely to be laid off than nonwhites. Their findings also observed a similar pattern of racial differences that exists in other employment practices which includes promotions, pay raises, and performance ratings. The study is more than 2 decades old and yet the key points presented still resonate today, demonstrating the lack of development in the equity aspect in the workplace stemming from underrepresentation of POCs in the boardroom. So, why is that?
When changes aren’t institutionalized, it fails to deliver the desired effect. Which is why during times of economic hardship, DEI programs are often the first to bear the brunt and get defunded. It seems to me that most DEI programs are just window dressing that are dispensable and removable at a moment’s notice. Changes are merely cosmetic claims to brighten up corporate webpages when it comes to compliance but fails to enact real changes within the organization’s DNA.
So what does that tell us about a firm’s priorities?
Even though we are stepping towards progress, diversity remains mostly a cosmetic claim to appease investors and consumers with no deeper root within their business identity. Firms should look to restructure their core values to incorporate diversity to positively embody tangible, lasting change.
With how prevalent AI technology is becoming, there are numerous angles through which we can use to judge its ethicality. Taking from the article, I will limit my discussion of AI through the lens of Boardroom diversity and Environmental impact.
Firstly, I’d like to bring attention to the intersection of AI and diversity. AI is present in various sectors, but my concern lies primarily within its application in employment and the service industry as it pertains to my own intended majors of psychology and business. Students like myself will be entering a volatile job market with the possible automation of many entry-level positions, and one such source of fear is AI implementation.
AI will be a part of our future, be it positive or negative, and I think firms need to take a step back to consider the implications of implementing AI into their business model. To many, AI holds many promises of creating a more equitable future through personalizing education and training, as well as offering data-based insights aiding DEI efforts. However, this technology isn’t as impartial as it’s made out to be. All the data we have to offer is often riddled with human biases due to subjective reporting. Amsterdam’s Crime Anticipation System (CAS) is an algorithm created for predictive intervention by compiling a list of high-risk individuals. However, the program has not gone through any human rights impact assessment as far as I’m aware and thus perpetuates prejudiced profiling practices in a more systemic manner. Lower-income and ethnic people may be targeted the same way if AI is to be embedded in recruitment, employment, and promotion.
I do concur with the question posed in the article that yes, AI is progressing far too fast. It is growing at a rate much faster than we can train skilled workers to manage its upkeep, nor do we have enough time for sufficient research to put regulations in place. We need careful oversight for every step of AI development, but most executives are laymen in the topics, and the average IT professional may lack experience and necessary skill sets due to the novelty of the tool. Kartik Hosanagar proposed a solution: “What needs to happen is investments in education at school levels, where people are trained to understand AI.” Ideally, we need to revamp how frequently curriculums are updated to keep students and future workers in touch with the changing times.
Secondly, the other concern about AI development is its negative environmental impact. Some of the biggest criticism of OpenAI, a leading AI company, is that they lack transparency, especially when it comes to their carbon emissions. Generative models such as ChatGPT or Midjourney have been speculated to contribute up to 3.7% of global carbon emissions, and it will only increase as the technology develops and demand grows.
As our dependence on AI and its successors inevitably increases, we have to integrate sustainability into every facet of the practice. To minimize consumption, there needs to be proper investment in enhancing the efficiency of both software and hardware. Codes can be rewritten to spend the least amount of electricity possible, while GPUs can continue to evolve to run more computations on the same amount of energy. But even with unending effort in reducing electrical usage, I fear AI usage will still exhaust a great amount of energy. In that sense, we can reduce carbon footprint through creating green data centers running on clean energy. AI firms can look to support decarbonizing power grids, fund infrastructure, and switch to natural cooling for their systems. AI itself can be utilized to make renewable energy more reliable through algorithmically predicting weather patterns and solar activities.
AI can help enhance performance across various industries, but if we’re not careful about managing its sustainability, there may be dire consequences socially and environmentally.