When the Honorable Justice Potter Stewart wrote that “there is a big difference between what we have the right to do and what is right” he was referring to the fact that both as individuals and members of organizations, there are a multitude of practices and decision-making enterprises that could easily be based on what is best for the company or individual, not necessarily the world, communities, or people impacted by these actions. Doing what is right sometimes takes restraint, but understanding that we do not have the right to certain actions, by the fact that we at DWI have money and power, is crucial.
A hypothetical case at DWI to illustrate this point is not difficult to come up with, particularly since our business crosses international borders and involves businesses which could have a large impact on the environment. For example, it might be very easy for DWI to find significant oil reserves in a foreign country, but these are located on a historic piece of land that is sacred or important to the indigenous population. While we could easily think that since we are a large Western organization versus a small, perhaps rural group of people who “don’t know better” or what is “best” for them, and thus have the right to take over this land for our own purposes, this is not right. Thus this illustrates one possible situation DWI could find itself in. Advocates of corporate social responsibility claim that the market would ultimately reward ethical behavior but ethics and interests do not always intersect so fruitfully in the real world” (Stark 1993). For DWI to be an ethical organization they must understand that these interests are in conflict and seek the best solution.
Another possible business situation that would illustrate the difference between doing what is right versus doing something we think we have the right to would be present in our real estate development projects. Since we are undertaking such a massive project and providing a service (via a nice place for elderly people to retire) we might think we have the right to engage only our own contractors for other services we provide such as waste and water treatment and we could easily fix prices and shove out the competition. While this is something it might be easy to think we have a right to do, this would not be right for the tenants nor for the community as a whole. Again, we at DWI must understand that just because we might provide something beneficial to people or the community, we cannot turn around and do something destructive.
In our financial markets, it might be easy to think that since we are a large and powerful Western company, we can simply charge developing and emerging markets huge rates just to be a part of our institution. While it may seem that we have every right to do this, especially since we are providing them with the necessary capital to become a new player in world markets, this is another case of us thinking we have a right to do wrong simply because of our size and power. This would not be the right thing to do to a developing country or market and it could have significant impacts on the economy and population in later years.
Yet another example of a business situation that might arise at DWI that would call into the question the difference between having a right to do something versus doing something right (for the right reasons) might come into play in our international hiring. While it is possible for us, as a large Western company with a ton of money to provide jobs in developing nations and pay only a minimal living wage, it is not the right decision. Just because we have the resources that another country or group of people does not does not entitle us to make such decisions. This is especially the case in this hypothetical situation because clearly we could pay higher wages but might choose not to because we have a right to pay whatever we wish.
For a large multi-national such as DWI with its tentacles in almost every conceivable aspect of commerce, it would be far too easy to grow selfish and feel as though we have the right to do things simply because of our size, power, and influence. All members of this organization must remember that we do not have a right to anything, especially if it’s something that is not right by the people we purport to serve. As one researcher notes, “the field of business ethics has been troubled by a lack of direction and has become entangled in its own logic” (Donaldson 1994) but perhaps by remembering the words of Justice Potter Stewart, we can remember how easy it should be to do what is right.
Donaldson, T. (1994). Toward a Unified Conception of Business Ethics: Integrative Social Contracts Theory. , 19(2), 252.
Jones. (1988). Will the ethics of business change? A survey of future executives. Journal of Business Ethics, 7(4), 231
Stark, A. (1993). What’s the matter with business ethics? Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 38.
