Please read each passage below, I need a minimum of 150 words for each part (1 & 2 ) which is a total of 300 words in response. I DO NOT need a reference or title page, however please provide the reference(s) underneath the passage. Please label as I have done below, example Part 1 and place your response along with the reference. Please keep each one on the same document! Please cite properly and use correct grammar. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MANY WORDS FOR PART 1 on this assignment 

PART 1 (Instructor response)

Thanks for your post of the training design to address ethics guidelines that should be part of any stakeholder interaction. Once again, given that the most common stakeholder interaction is that between provider and customer, sales and marketing professionals should be careful to ensure their level of transparency. Whereas the research provided by Holley (1998) concluded that a reasonable ideal should be a “disclosure requirement somewhere in the neighborhood of a permissively interpreted mutual benefit rule” (p. 434), Carson (2001) believed that Holley (1998) did not go far enough in his application of ethical rules. Carson argued that the principle of caveat emptor, or, let the buyer beware, is too often used by salespeople. He argued that the only reasonable ethical position is for salespeople to employ the Golden Rule. Consistency requires that if you think that it would be morally permissible for someone to do a certain act to another person, then you must consent to the idea of someone else doing the same act to you and relevantly similar circumstances (p. 441). Given this guidance of following the Golden Rule, do you see any potential issues that could be addressed in training design to prevent a violation of ethical transparency? Can we depend on the Golden Rule?
 

Carson, T. (1993). Second thoughts about bluffing. In T.L. Beauchamp & N.E. Bowie (Eds.), In Ethical theory and business (7th ed.) (pp. 50-55). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Holley, D.M. (1998). Information disclosure in sales. In T.L. Beauchamp & N.E. Bowie (Eds.), In Ethical theory and business (7th ed.) (pp. 50-55). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

PART 2

I am here today to talk with you about the Ethical and Social Responsibility of not only our company but you as well. The purpose of this training presentation is to make aware all people who are involved in our company here at John Soules Foods of our compliance and expectations going forward. In response to being Ethically and Socially Responsible in our community and globally there are specific rules, laws, and regulations that are required to be followed. As well as our vision and mission statements which you will all be given a copy of. Moving forward we are not limiting our organization to only the required specifications but, also to the safety, health, and well-being of our associates both in-house and in the world. We require our associates to be highly respectful of your peers and all those you work with on our behalf. If there is a problem, you are to report to the proper authority where the issue can be evaluated and addressed. If this does not bring proper response you are to move up to the next person until the issue is addressed. Just as unlawful representation will be cause for actions so is any unethical conduct. Measures will be taken to comply. However, we are human and realize that sometimes things happen and if the infraction is not costly or disruptive (taken on a case-by-case basis), probation may be the only reprimand. Not only do we expect all our personnel to follow these practices but carry them with you when representing us. Being ethical is not just about knowing right and wrong but doing the right thing even in the event it could put extra money in your pocket or grant you favor with someone. Listed in the resources of the company will be our vision and mission statement, rules, laws, and regulations of the industry, code of conduct, and guidelines for fair and impartial treatment of people and assets of the company. In our growing world of diversity, we will respect the people, cultures, and communities and continue to be Ethical and Responsibly Socially.

           In the article Hagel, J (2015), says, the most common means of embedding an ethical culture is by simply conforming to regulations (78%). Knowing this means that if you are to simply follow the written guidance your response will be within the rules, laws, regulations, and general ethical responsibility required. However, you must not simply rely on just the written words when issues arise which are not covered such as should you overlook a co-worker who is consistently being clocked in by another, or the harassment of someone in front of you? The answer is of course not, and this is where the ethical or right/wrong comes in. Forbes, (2019), has an article on this and the name says it all, Business Ethics and Integrity: It Starts with The Tone at The Top. In any business the way the highest in command acts is going to lay the framework for others. If he is emotionally intelligent and smiles when you first interact, chances are you will do the same. If he yells at you for what another did, you may go yell at them also. The ways of the company come from the top down and breaking of the codes/rules/procedures by them will also affect the people below. 

A lot of emphases is being put on the way people react to ethical values and how we treat people and our community, not ending with the miles around you but the world as in Global Warming. The bottom line is that if companies dont lead in ethical and socially responsible ways, the people below them wont either. It seems to be an attitude of, oh well if he (the boss) doesnt care why should I. This is not an excuse, and we should all act in an ethical manner and show respect for our world and the people in it.

References

Forbes, Business Ethics And Integrity: It Starts With The Tone At The Top, Betsy Atkins, (2019, found at  

Hagel, J. (2015, March 1). Ethics, reputation, and compliance gain as corporate priorities (Links to an external site.). Journal of Accountancy, found at

PART 3 (response from discussion)

This line in your discussion is not really true, “ethics requires an individual to do what is right regardless of what is defined by the law” in a law-abiding world. Compliance is more relative to making the choice to Not obey the law or to follow the rule of the law. Ethics would relate more to making a decision where the rules do not specify the rule of thumb to follow. Ethics comes in when you do have a decision to make. If you obey the law and there is a rule in place that is compliance. Such as, a company pays someone to illegally get rid of waste where the law states specific ways to handle it and they choose to break the law. It is then more n than ethics it is breaking laws. I worked for a Jack in the box and was fired because I refused to fry a burger that hit the floor, that is ethics, not a law enforcing it.