Global Ethics and Corporate Responsibility

Global Ethics and Corporate Responsibility is Week 6's discussion forum, worth 6% and anchored to Weekly Learning Outcome 2, with the course-wide competency tags [CLOs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5] and [NACE: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8]. The forum centers on one of the oldest live debates in business ethics: does a universal moral code exist regardless of an individual's culture, or should ethical judgment adapt to local custom and context? As organizations become increasingly global — with operations, suppliers, and employees spanning dozens of legal and cultural systems — this is not an abstract philosophy-class question. It is the exact question a multinational company answers, implicitly or explicitly, every time it writes a single global code of conduct or instead varies its labor, anti-corruption, or environmental standards market by market.

The Prompt, Restated

Prior to beginning work on this discussion forum, review Chapter 10 of the textbook and the two required articles: Böhm et al. (2022), Ethics at the Centre of Global and Local Challenges: Thoughts on the Future of Business Ethics, and Lampton and Razack (2020), Ethics Must Be Global. In your initial post, elaborate on the following prompts.

• Directive 1 — Compare and contrast universalism and relativism.
• Directive 2 — Evaluate how universalism and relativism affect global social corporate responsibility.
• Directive 3 — Support your research with three scholarly resources in addition to your selected article and the course textbook, cited and referenced in APA Style.

Your initial post must be a minimum of 350 words. The guided response then requires you to review several classmates' posts and respond to at least three peers in a minimum of 150 words each by 11:59 p.m. on Day 7. Canvas explicitly encourages posting your replies early in the week to promote more meaningful interactive discourse.

Universalism holds that certain ethical principles are valid everywhere, for every person and every organization, independent of culture, law, or local custom. Chapter 10 supplies the working term for this idea: hypernorms, "principles so fundamental that, by definition, they serve to evaluate lower-order norms, reaching to the root of what is ethical for humanity" (Donaldson & Dunfee, 1999, as cited in Gonzalez-Padron, 2025, p. 46). The chapter's own example is instructive: the right to a safe and healthy working environment is recognized as a fundamental human right by the International Labour Organization, a United Nations agency, and functions as a hypernorm regardless of which country a workplace sits in.

Relativism holds the opposite: that ethical standards are properly judged relative to the culture, community, or context in which an action occurs, and that no single moral code should be imposed uniformly across all cultures. A relativist position takes seriously that different societies have built different, internally coherent moral traditions, and that judging one culture's practices by another culture's standards is itself a kind of ethical overreach. Chapter 10 does not use the word "relativism" directly, but its discussion of disputed moral pressures — "a contested issue within the relevant community that is not resolved by manifest universal principles; an idiosyncratic context-specific issue" (Gonzalez-Padron, 2025, Table 10.1) — describes precisely the terrain where relativist reasoning operates: issues where reasonable people, shaped by different cultural contexts, genuinely disagree.

Chapter 10's Three-Category Framework as a Bridge

Table 10.1 in Chapter 10 categorizes moral pressures into three types, and this table maps directly onto the universalism/relativism spectrum even though the chapter frames it as a stakeholder-response tool rather than a philosophy lesson.

Bowie and Dunfee's recommended strategy for each category — comply with benign pressures, act consistently with the firm's own core values on disputed pressures, and resist problematic pressures — is itself a practical compromise position between pure universalism and pure relativism: it treats some issues as non-negotiable across all cultures (universalist) while leaving room for good-faith disagreement on genuinely contested issues (relativist). This table is a strong anchor for Directive 1's compare-and-contrast if you want to ground the philosophical distinction in the textbook's own language rather than only in the two assigned articles.

The two required articles do not simply repeat each other — they occupy genuinely different positions on the universalism/relativism spectrum, which is exactly what makes them useful as a paired reading for this prompt.

Lampton and Razack (2020) — The Practitioner Case for Universalism

Lampton and Razack (2020), writing in Strategic Finance, argue that global companies must embrace a single code of ethics and apply it everywhere they operate. This is a direct, practitioner-facing argument for universalism: rather than varying ethical standards by market, a company commits to one consistent standard globally, on the reasoning that a single code protects the company's integrity and reputation and avoids the appearance (or reality) of a double standard — one set of rules for headquarters and a laxer set for overseas operations.

Böhm et al. (2022) — Balancing Global and Local

Böhm et al. (2022), published in the Journal of Business Ethics, take a more nuanced position, describing the future of business ethics amid global challenges. Rather than arguing for pure universalism, this multi-author reflection frames effective global business ethics as operating at both the global and the local level simultaneously — acknowledging that global businesses face genuinely worldwide ethical challenges (climate change, labor standards, digital ethics) that require some universal commitments, while also recognizing that local context, culture, and community expectations still shape how ethical principles are actually implemented and experienced on the ground.

Directive 2 is graded separately from Directive 1 and is where the post moves from definition to genuine evaluation. Global social corporate responsibility (CSR) is the practice of a multinational company taking responsibility for its social and environmental impact across every market it operates in, not only its home country. Universalism and relativism pull global CSR in opposite directions, and a strong post names the mechanism for each.

• Universalism's effect on global CSR — commits an organization to one consistent standard everywhere: the same labor protections, the same anti-corruption rules, the same environmental baseline, regardless of what local law or custom requires. This protects against a "race to the bottom" where a company relaxes its standards specifically in markets with weaker regulation, but it risks being read as cultural imperialism if the "universal" standard actually just reflects the norms of the company's home country dressed up as a global principle.
• Relativism's effect on global CSR — allows an organization to adapt its CSR practices to local expectations, regulatory environments, and cultural context, which can produce more locally legitimate and effective programs. But taken too far, relativism becomes a justification for lower labor, safety, or environmental standards in markets with weaker enforcement — precisely the "problematic moral pressure" scenario Chapter 10 describes, where a company or its stakeholders demand practices (child labor, unsafe conditions) that violate a hypernorm and dress the violation up as "local custom."
• The practical middle ground — most real multinational CSR programs land somewhere between the poles: a small set of genuinely universal, non-negotiable commitments (no forced labor, no child labor, basic safety standards) combined with locally adapted implementation of everything else (community engagement approach, specific philanthropic priorities, communication style). This mirrors Chapter 10's own benign/disputed/problematic framework.

Three hundred fifty words is enough room for a real compare/contrast plus a substantive evaluation, but only if the structure is deliberate. Budget the post so both directives are visibly and separately satisfied.

• Move 1 — Define universalism (~60 words). State the definition, anchor it in Chapter 10's hypernorm concept or Lampton and Razack's single-global-code argument, and give one concrete example.
• Move 2 — Define relativism (~60 words). State the definition, anchor it in Chapter 10's disputed-moral-pressure category or Böhm et al.'s local-context argument, and give one concrete example.
• Move 3 — Direct comparison (~50 words). Name the central tension explicitly: universal consistency and protection against a race to the bottom, versus local legitimacy and respect for cultural difference.
• Move 4 — Evaluate the effect on global CSR (~120 words). This is Directive 2 and should be the longest section — walk through how each position shapes a company's actual CSR practice, using a concrete example (Walmart, Starbucks, or one of your own).
• Move 5 — Synthesis (~40 words). State your own reasoned position — a hybrid of universal minimums plus local adaptation is a defensible closing stance, consistent with both the textbook and Böhm et al.
• Move 6 — References. The textbook, your selected article, and three additional scholarly resources in APA. The reference list does not count toward the 350-word minimum.

Mechanics That Protect the Grade

• Three scholarly resources beyond the selected article and the text. This is an explicit, separate requirement from citing Böhm et al. or Lampton and Razack — you need three more sources, not zero more.
• APA in-text citations and a references list. The prompt names the APA: Citing Within Your Paper and APA: Formatting Your References List Writing Center resources directly — use them.
• 350 words is a floor. A post that defines both terms, evaluates their effect on global CSR with a concrete example, and closes with a reasoned position typically lands in the 400–450 word range.
• Academic voice. Third person for the definitions and evaluation, no contractions, measured claims backed by citations rather than personal opinion alone.

The post below is a model, not a submission. It shows how both directives fit inside roughly 400 words, using three illustrative scholarly resources in addition to the two required articles and the course text. Replace the specific sources, company examples, and framing with your own research — the content below illustrates structure and citation form, not facts to copy. Rewrite it in your own voice; copying a model verbatim is an academic-integrity violation.

References

• Abou-Sabe, K., & Kaplan, S. (2024). Starbucks sued for marketing fraud over supplier labor practices. [Illustrative citation — verify and replace with your own confirmed source.]
• Böhm, S., Carrington, M., Cornelius, N., de Bruin, B., Greenwood, M., Hassan, L., Jain, T., Karam, C., Kourula, A., Romani, L., Riaz, S., & Shaw, D. (2022). Ethics at the centre of global and local challenges: Thoughts on the future of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 180(3), 835–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05239-2
• Gonzalez-Padron, T. (2025). Business ethics and social responsibility for managers (2nd ed.). The University of Arizona Global Campus.
• Lampton, J. A., & Razack, B. I. (2020). Ethics must be global. Strategic Finance, 101(8), 13–14.
• [Add two more of your own verified scholarly sources — the prompt requires three in addition to your selected article and the text.]

Body of post: approximately 400 words (excludes reference list) — above the 350-word minimum. Replace the illustrative Starbucks example and placeholder source with your own verified research before submitting.

The guided response requires you to review several classmates' posts and respond substantively to at least three peers, each reply a minimum of 150 words, due by 11:59 p.m. on Day 7. Canvas explicitly encourages posting replies earlier in the week to promote more meaningful, back-and-forth discourse rather than three isolated comments dropped at the deadline.

A Reply Pattern That Earns the Points

• Engage the specific position. Name whether the peer leaned universalist, relativist, or hybrid, and identify the concrete example they used.
• Add a concept or source they may not have considered. Bring in a different Chapter 10 concept (the scale/sensors/sensibilities framework, or a different company example) or one of your own three supporting sources.
• Test the position with a harder case. If a peer argued for strong relativism, offer a case where that logic would excuse a clearly problematic practice (child labor, unsafe conditions); if they argued for strict universalism, offer a case where a purely uniform standard produced a bad local outcome.
• Close with a genuine question that invites further discussion, rather than a closing compliment.

• Blurring universalism and relativism together. If the definitions are not crisp and distinct in the first two paragraphs, Directive 1 is not fully satisfied no matter how much material follows.
• Treating Directive 2 as an afterthought. The effect on global social corporate responsibility is a separately graded directive, not a closing sentence tacked onto the compare/contrast.
• Missing the three-additional-source requirement. "Support your research with three scholarly resources in addition to your selected article and the course textbook" means five total citable sources at minimum — the textbook, your selected required article, and three more.
• Staying purely abstract. An evaluation with no concrete company example or case reads as thinner than one grounded in something specific, even a brief one.
• Treating the peer reply as agreement plus a compliment. "I agree, great points!" does not meet the substantive-reply bar even at 150+ words if it adds no new concept or challenge.
• Posting all three replies at the last minute on Day 7. Canvas specifically encourages early replies for genuine back-and-forth discourse; late, isolated replies read as compliance rather than engagement.