The first is utilitarianism, which proposes making decisions to provide the greatest good for all. This view dominates business decision making and is consistent with goals such as efficiency, productivity, and high profits. Keep in mind that utilitarianism is not always as objective as it sounds. Another ethical criterion is to make decisions consistent with fundamental liberties. An emphasis is on protecting the basic rights of individuals, such as the right to privacy, free speech, and due process.

This criterion protects whistle-blowers when they reveal an organization’s unethical practices to the press or government agencies, using their right to free speech. A third criterion is to impose and enforce rules fairly and impartially to ensure justice or an equitable distribution of benefits and costs. Decision makers, particularly in for-profit organizations, feel comfortable with utilitarianism. The “best interests” of the organization and its stockholders can justify a lot of questionable actions, such as large layoffs.

But many critics feel this perspective needs to change. Public concern about individual rights and social justice suggests managers should develop ethical standards based on nonutilitarian criteria. This presents a challenge because satisfying individual rights and social justice creates far more ambiguities than utilitarian effects on efficiency and profits. This is where corporate social responsibility (CSR) comes in to effect a positive change. As we can see by looking at utilitarian ideals, organizations are not motivated to respond equitably when they are looking only at a balance sheet.