COMMERCE 7016OL Corporate Social Responsibility And Ethics

1.

As far as the US Constitution is concerned, the legislation does not prescribe any clear definition of the commercial speeches. However, there are some specifications regarding the commercial speeches that can differentiate between the normal speeches and the commercial speeches. According to Beard (2017) the fundamental rights of speeches that are mentioned in the First Amendment, cannot be stifle or restricted by the government in respect to falsehood. However, there is a sharp distinction between the common statements and a commercial speech such as in case of falsified or misleading commercial statement the government can and do prohibit it entirely. However, there are some specifications related to the commercial speeches. According to Coates (2015) statements that are related to economic interests of the speaker and the audience and also proposing a commercial transaction are treated as commercial speeches. However, there combination of speeches that can be both commercial and non-commercial approaches but the US constitution prohibited the advertisements as treated like non-commercial statements. The purpose behind this approach is to protect the consumer interests by prohibiting advertisements as non-commercial.

In the context, of the Nike’s statement was a commercial speech or free statement it can be stated that there were plenty of debates. According to Beard (2017) it can be stated that Nike’s speech was a free speech because it did not sale or promote its products. It was more lie a public opinion. On the other hand, Coates (2015) advocated that it cannot be a free speech. Though it is true that the company did not mention any product but it served the purpose of the promoting its brand image. Therefore, the first verdict of the US Supreme Court was rightly addressed the motive of Nike.

2.

The out-of –court settlement pushed Nike to donate US$ 1.5 million to the Fair Work Labour Association and also compelled to make a joint statement with Kasky in order to strengthen the workplace monitoring and factory worker program. This was a strategy step taken by the Nike management. As per their study Rauter, Jonker and Baumgartner (2017) argued that the organisations are not intended to provide benevolent measures to the society though they have to follow the government regulation regarding sustainability. Moreover Wang et al. (2014) opined that if the organisations spontaneously follow the sustainable measures then there will be no need of the government frameworks to enforce the safety and security of the employees from outside. Therefore, it can be stated that Nike also possessed these kind of mentalities that can increase its profit by exploiting the workers. In this context, out-of-court settlement did not create any solution for workplace exploitation rather proved the power of the big business organisations to choke the free voices with the power of money. There are still practices where the big business industries exploit its workers and earn more profit but without the effective monitoring process they cannot be traced.

However, there is still the US government that is entitled to safeguard the interests of the employees. If the Supreme Court verdict went in favour of Nike then it will provide more power in the hand of the private organisations to continue their exploitative nature. On the other hand, corroborating Kasky’s claim would provide an example for the Supreme Court to show harsh punishments if the employee initiatives were not been followed. However, in reality the Supreme Court failed to set such examples and indirectly freed the private organisations to continue their punitive practices.

3.

It can be argued that organisations are not as same as the individual human beings. There are ample of rights for the organisations to expand its business to a great extent. However, in case of moral rights most of the researchers are sceptical about the role of the organisations and its ethical considerations. Therefore, the government has to put some legal restrictions to the business activities of the organisation. In this respect, White et al. (2017) has argued that there are monopolistic and dominating attitude of the business companies that prohibit it from getting any political benefits. As per the perception of Miller and Rose (2017) it can be stated that the political organisations are committed to serve the interests of the people not any organisations. Therefore, it is morally unethical to give the corporate houses the same political rights as an individual can enjoy.

On the other hand, it can be argued that some legal constraints must be placed in order to make a better and healthy business environment that is beneficial for the common people. In this regard, the common speech and the commercial speech should not be treated the same because the commercial speech might be fraudulent or misleading. In many cases, the private enterprises tried to maximise their customers by promoting false product details. As a result of that the consumer interests will be hampered. Keeping in mind about defending the interests of the customers the Supreme Court sets some regulations that separates the commercial speeches and the individual statement. Based on this understanding, it can be argued that there must be a strict demarcation between the commercial speeches and the individual statements or otherwise there will be no validation of the individual rights as individual interests will be violated due to the constant misleading promotions carry out but the business organisations.

4.

The case related to Nike is more related to the social responsibility of the organisation to address the public regarding its working conditions not only in homeland but also in overseas expansions. Hence it can also be stated that there are moral obligations for the company to reveal or expose their social responsibility statements so that the public can understand their keen intensions (Redish and Voils 2016). As the sustainability issues become a great importance to the organisational dynamics, the companies are also compelled to post in a regular basis about it. Any kind of falsehood or misleading information can damage their image globally as well as damage the profitability (Schauer 2016). Therefore, Nike must put some concern on publishing its sustainability reports accurately and truthfully.

Reference

Beard, C., 2017. An economic interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. Routledge.

Coates IV, J.C., 2015. Corporate speech & the First Amendment: history, data, and implications. Const. Comment., 30, p.223.

Miller, P. and Rose, N., 2017. Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. In Foucault and Law (pp. 191-224). Routledge.

Rauter, R., Jonker, J. and Baumgartner, R.J., 2017. Going one's own way: drivers in developing business models for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, pp.144-154.

Redish, M.H. and Voils, K., 2016. False Commercial Speech and the First Amendment: Understanding the Implications of the Equivalency Principle. Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J., 25, p.765.

Schauer, F., 2016. Commercial Speech and the Perils of Parity. Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J., 25, p.965.

Wang, X., Van Wart, M. and Lebredo, N., 2014. Sustainability leadership in a local government context: The administrator's role in the process. Public Performance & Management Review, 37(3), pp.339-364.

White, A., Yakis-Douglas, B., Helanummi-Cole, H. and Ventresca, M., 2017. Purpose-Led Organization: “Saint Antony” Reflects on the Idea of Organizational Purpose, in Principle and Practice. Journal of Management Inquiry, 26(1), pp.101-107.