Assess the social implications of business ethics Essay Example for Free

Assess the social implications of business ethics Essay Environment- the environment can affect the human activity. So for example; global warming which is the warming of the planet’s surface that is caused by carbon dioxide. In order to run a business efficiently they would need to make sure that their customers are aware of all the environmentally friendly activities that they do and that they are not harming the environment in anyway as some customers do take keeping environment healthy seriously. Sainsbury’s is really cautious about caring about the environmental and being eco-friendly and making sure that they are not causing any damage to the areas around them. They take the climate change seriously. They are concerned about the impact that they have on the environment. Their aim is to reduce the carbon footprint, reduce packaging and reducing waste. Sainsbury’s are concerned about the impact that they have on the environment, also with the career bags they give they make sure that they only take out the amount of bags that they need so that the bags are wasted. They want to make sure that they are making a continuous improvement with the environment so that it is not harming anyone. Sainsbury’s do not want to harm the industrial areas in anyway, and that is why wherever they are located is always safe where it would not cause any damage to the people or the planet. They want the climate to be good and they know what ways it could affect it and what they need to do in order to prevent causing damage and staying away from trouble. In order to improve this Sainsbury’s can make sure that anything that they do does not affect the environment and maybe before making any major changes they take advices from their local areas in what they think and how and what could be done to improve it. They could also charge for the bags so that the customers do not start asking for more bags then they already need. Sainsbury’s could also keep publishing information on environmental performance so everyone realises how important it is to look after the environment. Trading fairly- these are the rules the businesses need to follow which include; the business needs to run in an open manner, competition can only happen in between companies that belong to equal parties and making sure their customers are satisfied and are feeling secured with the business’s products and the quality of the products. All usinesses need to make sure that they are honest to their customers and are describing their products as it is to their customers so that they do not get angry by getting the wrong information. Sainsbury’s use many products that are organic and make many fair-trade products such as; fresh fruits. They need to make sure all their products are traded fairly and are pay ing their suppliers and employees fairly and make sure they are now paying them below the national minimum wage. They cannot cheat on their employee by providing them with the wrong information about the product or charge their customers extra for the product. All businesses need to follow all the rules and regulations in order to run ethically. Legal and regulatory compliance- all businesses must follow all the laws and regulations that have been set because if they do not agree to following the rules they would not be running the business ethically. Every organisation must be truthful to their customers and provide them with the correct information about the product and also not overcharge them for any of their goods and services. Sainsbury’s need to make sure that they are following the legislations and regulations so that they are not doing that is against the law. They want their business to be running with health and safety so that no one is harmed by it. They try recruiting staff as possible so that they are not the cause of unemployment, they plan their business properly so that they do not have to face any trouble in the long term and they have been doing that quite well as this is the reason why they are running successfully, they care about the environment and do not want to cause pollution that is why they produce sustainable products. They treat their workers right and follow the rules of not making them work more than they are supposed to, take disadvantage of them, they keep record of all workers and makes sure it’s available for authorities. They make sure they are treating their customers with respect and are not letting them down in any way. Bribery- this is when a business uses money to sort out the behaviour of the receiver. Sainsbury’s have always stuck to the laws so they haven’t really been through bribery or in other words ‘corruption. They are always assuring of their plans that they make. They would not do anything that would be illegal. They would not take any actions that would later on make a negative impact on the industry although they could bribe the local government by giving them extra money so that they government would let them do things that they wouldn’t let other businesses do. In order to improve their performance Sainsbury’s could measure their l evel of corruption and identify their weaknesses. This would help them to improve ways to meet the standards of their customers and all the other people who are a part of their business and figure out how to improve and resolve any other problems that could occur in the future. Animal testing- this is used to figure out whether a product is safe and effective. The production of goods can lead to ethical issues, which Sainsbury’s are against. Almost all businesses test their products on animals before selling it in the market. However Sainsbury’s do not approve of this as they believe that animals should be treated fairly and with respect so they are constantly working to raise welfare standards. From giving pigs happier lives through improved farming methods, to ensure that their own-label cosmetics meet the Humane Cosmetics Standard and increasing their range of freedom food products, which meet strict RSPCA guidelines. They offer wide ranges of higher welfare foods and cosmetics at any UK retailer but all Sainsbury’s products are free from animal testing.

The Beginning or the End :: Eliot Wasteland Maddy Essays

The Beginning or the End Throughout the history of the human race, there have been many unknowns that have been investigated and many obstacles that have been overcome. However, possibly the most mysterious question to people still stands unknown to everyone after all of these years. That is the question of what happens after life. What kind of transition, if any, is there to a new life or whatever may occur after death? Many people have many different ideas and feelings regarding death. Some people have rituals that are performed after a person’s demise which theoretically have the purpose of providing them with a good "afterlife" or at least making sure that they go "there" at the end of their life on earth. Regardless of what is envisioned occurring at the end of our lives here on earth, it remains that death is the biggest unknown that is left to all of mankind. And at least with our current technology, and probably that which we will have in the near future, we have no way of solving the biggest mystery of life. "I will show you fear in a handful of dust." This probably wouldn’t have ever become a famous or noticeable quote, or even a meaningful one for that matter, had it not been for the poem, The Wasteland, and also the context in which it was written. However, it is very insightful and a very deep thought which can provoke a lot of detailed and heated discussion simply because of the issue that it surrounds. This quote is applied to the poem, The Wasteland, and also, No Past, No Present, No Future, and is tied deeply into the plot of the story. Regardless of how it is brought up or whether it is used to analyze another piece of work though, this universal concept of life, death, and whatever occurs after death is a very difficult one to approach. Excluding a few brave individuals and some remote cultures that both may welcome death or at least be open to it for spiritual reasons or otherwise, the majority of the human population has an immense fear of death, of the unknown. In light of this it should come as no surprise that a deep appreciation of life could be presented in any writing in which it would be appropriate. The Wasteland and No Past No Present No Future are two completely different pieces of literature that very few similarities and relations to each other, especially in context and style. The Beginning or the End :: Eliot Wasteland Maddy Essays The Beginning or the End Throughout the history of the human race, there have been many unknowns that have been investigated and many obstacles that have been overcome. However, possibly the most mysterious question to people still stands unknown to everyone after all of these years. That is the question of what happens after life. What kind of transition, if any, is there to a new life or whatever may occur after death? Many people have many different ideas and feelings regarding death. Some people have rituals that are performed after a person’s demise which theoretically have the purpose of providing them with a good "afterlife" or at least making sure that they go "there" at the end of their life on earth. Regardless of what is envisioned occurring at the end of our lives here on earth, it remains that death is the biggest unknown that is left to all of mankind. And at least with our current technology, and probably that which we will have in the near future, we have no way of solving the biggest mystery of life. "I will show you fear in a handful of dust." This probably wouldn’t have ever become a famous or noticeable quote, or even a meaningful one for that matter, had it not been for the poem, The Wasteland, and also the context in which it was written. However, it is very insightful and a very deep thought which can provoke a lot of detailed and heated discussion simply because of the issue that it surrounds. This quote is applied to the poem, The Wasteland, and also, No Past, No Present, No Future, and is tied deeply into the plot of the story. Regardless of how it is brought up or whether it is used to analyze another piece of work though, this universal concept of life, death, and whatever occurs after death is a very difficult one to approach. Excluding a few brave individuals and some remote cultures that both may welcome death or at least be open to it for spiritual reasons or otherwise, the majority of the human population has an immense fear of death, of the unknown. In light of this it should come as no surprise that a deep appreciation of life could be presented in any writing in which it would be appropriate. The Wasteland and No Past No Present No Future are two completely different pieces of literature that very few similarities and relations to each other, especially in context and style.

How Far Was the Nuclear Arms Race a Threat to World Peace Essay

The nuclear arms race did threaten world peace because the weapons being created had the potential to destroy the world, to any nation this comprehension was threatening especially due to these weapons being in control of two countries that ideologically conflicted. Additionally, both superpowers paranoia for one another grew as the power of the weapons created grew and multiplied, this further threatened world peace since any minor movement made by either power could have been misinterpreted as an attack. However, it becomes clear from a post perspective that the arms race did in fact deter any form of violence between the USA and the USSR, this was due to their fear of mass destruction and that it was more a competition of ability between the two powers rather than a desire to attack their opponent. Although these facts do suggest the arms race wasn’t threatening, the fact that both nations had the capability to destroy the world can be seen as enough for the arms race to have been a threat to world peace. The Culture of secrecy that developed during the arms race threatened world peace because it fuelled the paranoia consuming each nation as to whether the other had military superiority. The fears concerning both powers led to assumptions being made on the other country’s progress, this is evident with the profound effect the Gaither report of 1957 had on the US. The report which was commissioned just after Sputnik heightened fear that the Soviet Union had military superiority because there was a missile gap between the two nations. The report led to the US creating a National Defence Education Act in an attempt to reinforce their already extensive military science and defence units, at the time the number of students studying at college doubled (mainly in engineering, maths and science). The impact of the report illustrates US fears of Russia gaining military superiority and if Eisenhower had thought the report to be true, it is questionable how much action might have been taken to prevent Russian military knowledge expanding. Therefore the culture of secrecy and the ignition of fear it created made the arms race a threat to world peace. Additionally, the concentration of power in the hands of both nations encouraged dangerous tactics to be considered, such as, the US doctrine of ‘massive retaliation’ in 1954. The US was confident at this point of their nuclear superiority over the world and believed that no nation would risk a war against their nuclear based force, it used the method of brinkmanship which involved going to the brink of nuclear war. Therefore the method was extremely provocative and if used would easily cause further hostility and conflict, especially since the USSR was adopting similar methods. An example of Brinkmanship can be seen in the Cuban Missile crisis 1962 which did arguably come to the brink of nuclear war, it’s an example of how dangerous the method is since if both powers were attempting to use it it wouldn’t have the desired effect of forcing the other country into submission. Consequently it seems the arms race in the 1950’s had led to over confidence for both nations to be considering such tactics which undoubtedly would have threatened world peace. However, the nuclear arms race did arguably deter both nations from participating in direct conflict due to the threat it would disrupt world peace. This concept of nuclear deterrence arose during the Korean War due to the threat direct conflict posed for not only Korea but the world. To prevent nuclear escalation procedures were followed such as Stalin not becoming directly involved in the war and Truman not using nuclear weapons against China, since this would lead to Russia having to support China and an indirect nuclear conflict taking place. When evaluating the Cuban Missile Crisis it is evident the effect different concepts and methods have on the outcome of nuclear threat, massive retaliation led to a quarantine in the Cuban crisis, whilst in the Korean war nuclear deterrence led to peaceful existence of both countries in opposition with no nuclear threat present. But this does show that different methods being interpreted played a key role in the arms race being a threat to world peace and that it wasn’t solely the nuclear arms being created. It is also clear during 1949-62 that the arms race was more of a competition between the two powers, hence ‘race’. Neither concluded any form of destruction or conflict as a result of the arms race, therefore it’s difficult to view the race as a threat. It is evident that it was simply a competition since it also involved technological and space advances, such as when Sputnik was launched in 1957, US failed in launching their own satellite Vanguard which was seen as a great failure and embarrassment for the US. The Soviet Union seemed to advance with rocket technology and in 1961 Yuri Gagarin in Vostok I became the first man in space, this indicates that particularly for Russia the arms race was not only about military advancements but overall technological advancements. It illustrates that the arms race was more about being the smartest and most powerful nation rather than bringing about the others destruction and thus being a threat to the world. It appears that the arms race wasn’t only about the destructive weaponry but about the paranoia and the ego of the two powers. Both nations were in fierce competition with the other to be the best super power and this seemed far more important to them than actually attacking the other nation, this is clear due to both countries agreeing to nuclear deterrence and limited war. Neither country wished to disrupt peace but simply lived in fear of the other country developing a more powerful weapon they could confront the other with, or succeeding them in space technology and thus being the better nation. Although any confrontation that had taken place rarely truly would have led to a nuclear war, there was always a slight threat that even with the most minute misinterpretation a missile could have been fired. This concern combined with the fact both nations did have the capability to destroy the world is enough to conclude that the nuclear arms race was a threat to world peace.

A Summary Of Naomi KleinsNo Is Not Enough - 816 Words

Bestselling novelist Naomi Klein presented her new book, â€Å"No is Not Enough.† Klein proceeds to explain her inspiration for the book, the election of Donald Trump. Additionally, she states that the writing process for this book was expedited because of the urgency she felt after the election. The book focuses on the resistance that is necessary for this â€Å"time of crisis.† Naomi Klein starts her talk with a brief of her personal experiences in â€Å"crises.† She was in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, present in the collapse of Greece’s economy, witnessed 2001 riots in Argentina. She continues with the similarities in these crises. She claims that these crises were â€Å"Wake up calls,† that they had a â€Å"Wake up element† for change.†¦show more content†¦The expected to lose many seats in the early election recently called by Prime Minister Teresa May. What Labor did to counter this expected loss was to p ropose was strictly liberal policies. In an unexpected turn, Labor gained more seats and Teresa May lost her Tory majority. Klein used this example to show that saying more than just â€Å"no† can successfully change policy. Klein states that we must have â€Å"offense and defense at the same time.† She finishes by saying we live in a time of intersecting crises and that people are hungry for solutions. She inspirationally tells the crowd that the apocalyptic news on the television doesn’t match up with the solutions. While her message is inspirational, it is hypocritical. There are some fallacies, major if I do say, within her speech. She vehemently rebuked the â€Å"shock doctrine,† which she mostly portrays as a conservative tactic. Yet, this passionate theory of her is also her downfall. My initial question was, â€Å"Why does she rush to these â€Å"crises† she preaches about?† Well, she rushes to crises, alongside the â€Å"corporate capitalism† she describes, to promote the â€Å"Wake up call,† otherwise known as her own beliefs. Another important example she uses to demonstrate the â€Å"Shock Doctrine† is the â€Å"crisis† in Puerto Rico. She, at one point, stated that with the current failure of the electrical grid this should be the time to install â€Å"green sources of energy.† But she blames corporate capitalism with trying to privatize it and