Comparing Social Welfare Systems: UK and Germany

Comparing Social Welfare Systems: UK and Germany This paper will seek to compare the social welfare systems of England and Germany with regard to how they cater for the elderly. The paper will approach the issue by firstly discussing the theoretical underpinnings of the welfare state in both England and Germany. This initial theoretical analysis is important because it sets the foundation to understand the way in which social welfare policy in both countries approach care of the elderly. The paper will then provide a comparative analysis of the welfare issues affecting the elderly such as national insurance, elderly care, pension provisions, health care and other pertinent variables. This comparison will then seek to establish defining characteristics of each model towards elderly care. One of the most prolific scholarly expositions on welfare systems and their ideological frameworks come from Epsing-Anderson[1] who postulated that there are three distinct regimes of welfare systems. These he identified as Liberal, Corporatist and Social Democratic. Within this model, he located Germany as a Corporatist- Conservative regime and the United Kingdom as a Liberal welfare regime. Nevertheless, despite arguing how welfare states have developed and can be characterized under these three trajectories, Epsing-Anderson maintains that â€Å"the welfare state cannot be regarded as the sum total of social policies, it is more than a numerical cumulation of discrete programmes†.[2] With this in mind, the paper will now consider the theoretical underpinnings of Germany as a Corporatist-Conservative regime. Germany maintains a welfare system that is usually classified as the classical Bismarckian welfare state. This intimates that the welfare system in Germany is structured among class and occupational lines and subsequently a high degree of stratification, along the lines of market participation exists. The state, rather than the market, is the most important agency in the delivery of welfare and benefits are provided through a network of public, quasi public, private and voluntary organisations.[3] The German welfare state is characterized by a dominance of mandatory social insurance schemes such as health, unemployment, pensions, disability and long care. These schemes are predominantly contribution based benefits with the state partly contributing to public pension schemes, unemployment insurance and social assistance. Another feature of the German conservative welfare system is that it ascribes the male breadwinner model with significant corrections. It is steeped in the social policy dictates of Catholicism and this is demonstrated by a commitment to ‘the preservation of status differentials’[4] by emphasising self-help and to the preservation of a traditional family model. Women’s benefits are inextricably linked to their spouse, which in modern day society, places women at a disadvantage because they may have spent years caring for elderly relatives, or childrearing and widows pensions are inherently low.[5] However, the German welfare state has had to adapt to the new realties of modern society where more women are remaining single, divorce rates are higher and individuals have to work for much longer. The oft practiced early retirement feature of the German welfare state has also seen adjustments as families, especially women now need to reconcile salaried work commitments along with duties towards their loved ones in order to ensure a good standard of living in today’s market led economy.[6] These changes have had an effect on how elderly care is administered and ordered within the German welfare sate. Before the issue of care for the elderly with the German welfare state model is explored, the paper will now examine the characteristics of the UK welfare state. Converse to the German corporatist-conservative welfare state model, the United Kingdom is largely been historically characterized as an example of a liberal welfare model. However as Epsing-Anderson stated earlier, no one regime is a pure typology, instead they are usually a hybrid form albeit with an overarching ideology. Modern day societies demand that so called welfare regimes undergo pragmatic shifts to adjust to social, political and economic shifts. In light of these changes the UK welfare system is viewed as a liberal socialist welfare system. Firstly, the welfare system in the UK places a distinct emphasis on market-based social insurance and it uses of means-testing for the â€Å"fair† distribution of benefits. It regards as fair the distribution of more benefits to the poor or vulnerable who are viewed as more deserving. In this regard, welfare is oriented towards a class of the poor dependent or what is called the ‘residual welfare state’. The consequence of this is that, there is a low degree of de-commodification, meaning, benefits are limited and stigmatised by the general populace as the model assumes that high levels of benefit will reduce incentives to work. A high degree of stratification exists within the UK welfare state, wherein, the state plays an active role in social relations. One of the factors impacting the classification of the UK as a liberal social democratic welfare state regime is the existence of in-kind services such as free health care which is delivered through the National Health Service (NHS) and the prevalence of subsidised social housing to vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, single parents and the homeless. One of the most impacting changes within the liberal social democratic social welfare regime of the UK was pension reform in the 1980’s. These reforms saw the government cutting back on contributions that were earnings liked to retirement incomes and the heightened encouragement of private schemes as a necessary supplement. Many employers took advantage of the new low regulations on pension schemes and did not offer sufficient coverage adequate for a decent retirement standard of living and quality of life.[7] Subsequently, the UK government has not been able to negotiate adequate pension conditions with private employers on behalf of workers. All these changes within the liberal oriented UK welfare state model necessitates the discussion on how the elderly is affected. The aforementioned discussion on the typology of the welfare state in both Germany and the UK was necessary to this paper, as it sets the stage to understand how the elderly are treated within these two ideological frameworks. It also allows for an analysis on how modern day society has altered or shifted these ideological welfare state positions. To this end, the paper will now consider the comparative analysis with a focus on the various modes of care and policies towards the elderly in both Germany and the UK. One of the most important modes of care for the elderly is the provision of good health care. In societies where younger children have had to buy into active participation in a market based economy, the elderly becomes a particularly vulnerable group. Wegner explains this aptly when he states: â€Å"The absence of supportive health and social services contributes to several important problems: (1) the quality of care may fall short of adequate standards, resulting in instances neglect or abuse; (2) the strain of care giving places caregivers themselves at risk for many health problems; and (3) the heavy burden falling on a single caregiver eventually results in a greater reliance on institutional care than may be necessary.†[8] Germany’s historically conservative welfare state ideology, dictated that the family should be the main care-giver and support system for the elderly. However, with the elderly population living alone in Germany is the highest in the OECD and the European Union. Sensing that this tend would have been inevitable, Germany launched a long term care insurance scheme in 1994 which targeted the elderly. This scheme functions on a pay as you go basis and is strictly aimed at those in need of social assistance.[9] It is â€Å"financed through earmarked social insurance contributions and organized as a separate branch of social insurance†.[10] Some features of the scheme are: community based care, payment to caregivers and nursing homes, home modifications, personal assistance and general household assistance. In some instance, the elderly are also covered under the state’s accident and pension insurance schemes. Interestingly, Taylor-Gooby[11] notes that space was still made to retain conservative values with the introduction of the long-term care assistance as legislation such as cash reimbursement without any form of monitoring to encourage family supported care giving practices. In contrast, the elderly in the UK receive completely free health care under the statutory National Health Service which is free to all citizens post World War II. However, as previously discussed, the UK underwent serious cutbacks in pension provisions in the 1980’s and this has placed a significant number of retirement age pensioners at risk of poverty. Furthermore, the government also cut back in the number of public beds available for care in hospitals. This has in some ways encouraged caregiving from family members for the elderly, but like Germany, may younger family members have to reconcile paid employment with their desire to care for their loved ones. This has placed considerable strain on the NHS as the elderly suffer many injuries from largely having to care for themselves. The strain on the NHS reached such a crescendo that some doctors even recommended not treating the very old.[12] The NHS has come under great criticism for its treatment of the elderly,[13] cons equently the government, is trying to achieve the goals of its 10 year plan to reform care of the elderly in the UK which is documented in the National Service Framework for Older People. The inspection report â€Å"Living Well into Later Life†[14] recommended that the NHS needed to do more to encourage wellbeing and active ageing among the elderly. Specifically, while the NHS system is fraught with irregularities, vulnerable persons such as the elderly are increasingly being given more attention within the UK welfare state, with appeals for more state intervention, as opposed to the closed family oriented model of Germany. Housing is another important issue for the elderly. In Germany, the tradition of home care has affected the number of elderly persons who leave the home environment for care. Only 4% of the over 65 year old age group live in a nursing home or other forms of institutional care, despite the high number of elderly Germans living alone.[15] Much of these attitudes towards institutional care are grounded in German legislation as the constitution is based on the principle of â€Å"subsidiarity† whereby responsibility for welfare needs rests squarely with families, then local or federal authorities, that order.[16] The German long term care insurance â€Å"pays for personal care, medical help and social care†[17] in a nursing institution for the elderly only when familial help is no longer possible. It avoids paying for accommodation and subsistence costs and the total payment does not â€Å"exceed 75 percent of the total cost.†. Dallinger maintains that housing for the elderly in Germany is usually determined along social class lines.[18] She makes this assertion because the higher and middle class are usually financially able to employ paid care or help for their elderly family members and therefore institutional care is usually only sought by those who cannot afford such care. Nonetheless, Dallinger points out that the increase of German women entering the labour market has necessitated a greater demand on the need for the elderly to rely on the welfare state for care assistance, since younger women were the traditional caregivers. Housing for the elderly in the UK suffers similar challenges as younger family members do not have the time to care for their elderly relatives because of the gradual individualization of the society. This places the elderly at risk of social exclusion and being marginalized within modern day Britain. Consequently, the government has reduced the cost of housing council tax for the elderly and has provided them additionally benefits such as free transportation to encourage them to remain at home, while fostering active lives. Additionally, the â€Å"Living Well into Later Life† inspection report found a renewed push by the government to encourage older persons to stay in their own homes by providing them with paid personal caregivers. Furthermore an outreach group called â€Å"Supporting People† was actively advocating for the building of more sheltered housing facilities for the elderly.[19] However, it is appropriate to say that the issue of elderly housing in the UK r eceives more state intervention and welfare services than it does in Germany. This paper previously discussed how state cutbacks on pensions in the UK have placed the elderly in a particularly vulnerable retirement position. The UK now sees a pension scenario where those who are better off financially are able to buy into private pension schemes, and those who cannot afford have to rely on what is now a â€Å"diminishing† pension returns at retirement via the state. Furthermore, many individuals who were advised by pension salesmen, bought into private schemes yet saw their entire pension investments diminish in the mid to late 90’s when many private companies went bust because of being unregulated.[20] Taylor-Gooby asserts that in Germany, retirement income which traditionally came from public pensions, has seen a shift since a 2001 pension reform initiative in the state.[21] The German state has moved towards provision of a mixture of public-private pension scheme, along with great encouragement to citizens that public pensions will not suffice pre-retirement standard of living, thus plugging supplementary private schemes. Noting the failure of such schemes in the UK in the 90’s, Germany has sought to have stricter regulations on private pension providers. Furthermore, in line with its conservative ideology, women are given pension credits under the German welfare scheme for time taken off work for childrearing. It is therefore conclusive to say that while the UK and Germany have ideologically different perspectives on how their welfare state is structured, both countries have had to adapt to socio-economic changes within their societies and aim to provide better care for the elderly. The pressures of a rapidly aging population, the individualization of both societies has caused the elderly population to become increasingly isolated and at risk of being severely socially excluded and marginalized. Consequently social policies that inform traditional welfare states have become more pragmatic in their approaches while still trying to retain their ideological perspectives. Bibliography Alber, J. (1996) â€Å"The Debate about Long Term Care Reform in Germany†, in OECD (ed.) Caring for Frail Elderly People: Policies in Evolution. Social Policy Studies, No. 19, pp. 261-278. Dallinger, U. (2002) Elderly Care in the Family in Germany. Paper contributed to: COST 13A Meeting in Copenhagen, Friday 19. April 2002. Accessed on October 20, 2008 at: http://www.socsci.auc.dk/cost/gender/Workingpapers/UrsulaDallinger.pdf Donnelly, L., (September. 26, 2008) Don’t Treat the Old and Unhealthy says Doctors. The Telegraph. London. Accessed on October 21, 2008 at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576704/Dont-treat-the-old-and-unhealthy,-say-doctors.html Esping-Andersen, G. (1994) ‘Welfare States and the Economy’, in N. J. Smelser and R. Swedberg (eds) The Handbook of Economic Sociology, pp. 711–32. New York: Princeton University Press Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Oxford: Polity Press. Goode Committee (1994) Pensions Law Reform. Cm 2342-1, HMSO. Laurance, J. (March 27, 2006) The Great Betrayal: How the NHS Fails the Elderly. The Independent. London. Accessed on October 21, 2008 at: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/the-great-betrayal-how-the-nhs-fails-the-elderly-471635.html Living Well into Later Life: A Review of Progress Against the National Service Framework for Older People. Audit Commission. Audit Commission. UK. Accessed on October 21, 2008 at: http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/Products/NATIONAL-REPORT/4C4C40BE-6383-40E0-8B26-48D7FAF39A56/HCC_older%20PeopleREP.pdf Solsten, E. ed. (1995) Germany: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress. Accessed on October 19, 2008 at: http://countrystudies.us/germany/111.htm Taylor-Gooby, P. (2004) New Risks, New Welfare: The Transformation of the European Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wegner, E. (2001) Restructuring Care for the Elderly in Germany. Current Sociology. Vol. 49(3) pp. 175-188 1 Footnotes [1] Epsing-Anderson, G. (1990) [2] Epsing-Anderson, G. (1994) pp. 711-32 [3] Solsten, E. (1995) Accessed at: http://countrystudies.us/germany/111.htm [4] Epsing-Anderson, G. (1990) [5] Solsten, E. (1995) Accessed at: http://countrystudies.us/germany/111.htm [6] Taylor-Gooby, P. (2004) p. 31 [7] Goode Committee (1994) [8] Wegner, Eldon. (2001) p.2 [9] Ibid. [10] Taylor-Gooby, P. (2004) p. 42 [11] Ibid., p.40 [12] Donelly, The Telegraph (Sept 26, 2008) Accessed at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576704/Dont-treat-the-old-and-unhealthy,-say-doctors.html [13] Laurance, J. The Independent (March 27, 2006) Accessed at: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/the-great-betrayal-how-the-nhs-fails-the-elderly-471635.html [14] Living Well Into Later Life. Accessed at: http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/Products/NATIONAL-REPORT/4C4C40BE-6383-40E0-8B26-48D7FAF39A56/HCC_older%20PeopleREP.pdf [15] Dallinger, U. (2002) p.2 [16] Alber. J (1996) p.264 [17] Wegner, E. (2001) p. 180 [18] Dallinger, U. (2002) p. 3 [19] Living Well Into Later Life. Op. cit. p. 68 [20] Taylor-Gooby, P. (2004) p. 61 [21] Ibid. p.35 Social responsibility, maximising profits? Social responsibility, maximising profits? In his article The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits (1970), Milton Friedman, the Nobel laureate in economics, argued for what was summed up in the title of his article: the social responsibility of businesses is simply and solely to maximise profits! In the following, different arguments for and against Milton Friedmans statement will be presented and criticized. The inherent theories and principles will be presented as far as needed in order to discuss the extent to which this statement is true. Milton Freidman starts his famous article by describing the claim for a social responsibility of business by a pure and unadulterated socialism. For him, stating that business has a responsibility is looseness and lacks rigour. A company is only an artificial person and can not have responsibilities like an individual can. In this regard, only people in an organization, which means only the in ­dividual proprietors or the corporate executives, can have any social or moral responsibility. The managers of a company have a legal responsibility to manage the company in the best interests of the stockholders. As those shareholders first interest in investing their money in a business is to increase their wealth, then the managers sole responsibility is to maximize the profits for their shareholders. It is the legal and moral obligation of the managers to concentrate solely on serving their employers best interest, which means increasing profit. If the managers or the shareholders feel the need to fulfil any moral, social or ethical duties, they may very well devote some of their incomes or time to such activities. They are in doing so acting as a principal, not an agent. They are spending their own money and time, not those of the corporation they are working for and those of its shareholders. If an executive or a manager is fulfilling any social responsibility, this means that he will act in a way that is not in the primary interest of his employer, or worse, that is violating his duty of maximizing the profit. Any money or time that is spent by an executive in any kind of social action will not be spent to increase the shareholders wealth, to reduce prices or to increase wages. Therefore, this executive is spending someone elses money, the shareholders, the customers or the employees. Furthermore, in doing so, the manager is actually imposing a tax to the shareholders, the customers and the employees. He is also deciding on how those tax proceeds are to be spent. This is for Freidman a governmental function. In doing so, executives are, as per Freidman, simultaneously legislators, execu ­tives and, jurists. They become what Freidman calls public employees, civil servants even though they are employees of a private corporation. It is therefore the governments responsibility to impose taxes and determine the expenditures to be spent by any and all businesses in social activities. Freidman also recognizes that some businesses might act socially, contribute to chari ­ties or provide amenities. This can be described hyp ­ocritically by social responsibility or social actions. The real and hidden reason for businesses in doing so is to gain a long-term profit from such actions, like attracting desirable employees, reducing wage bill or tax proceeds. To summarize his thoughts and in his tribute to an ideal free-market, Freidman believes that no individual can coerce any other, all coopera ­tion is voluntary, all parties to such coopera ­tion benefit or they need not participate. There are no values, no social responsibilities in any sense other than the shared values and responsibilities of individuals. Society is a collection of individuals and of the various groups they voluntarily form. Some others do believe, all the same way, that the sole responsibility of a company is to compete to maximize profit. Adam Smith (As reported by The Economist, 2005) believes that benevolence is not necessary to advance the public interest. Rather, self-interest and profit-seeking is what brings humans to accomplish things, produce goods and services and thus benefit each others. It is false to think that profit-seeking fails to serve and advance the public interest, and that something else needs to be given back to the society to compensate for this profit-seeking. Keith Davis (1973) advances several arguments against the so called Corporate Social Responsibility. First of all, as per Freidman, the business function is an economic one, and the manager is the agent of the stockholders and has thus to maximize their profits. The second argument given by Davis is the costs of the social involvement. Indeed, many social goals do not have any economic outcome. Any business must spend with great caution its scarce resources, although sometimes very substantial, or it will sooner or later cause financial distress. Indeed, scarce resources will never self-renew, and must thus be spent in a way that guarantees at the minimum their recovery, if not gaining some premium. The author here cites some example metal foundries which could not meet the high costs of new pollution equipment and closed their doors. Another argument advanced by Davis is the lack of social skills of many businessmen. The author questions whether those businessmen, who are experts at generating profit, are well qualified to deal with social and public interests. Keith Davis also presents the argument of the dilution of the business primary purpose. A business involvement in social activities might dilute its primary focus on economic productivity, divide the interests of its leaders, and weaken business in the market place, with the results that it would accomplish poorly both its economic and its social roles. Furthermore, if a business spends resources in social programs, then these resources must be recovered, generally by increasing prices to the final consumer. In the same manner, if spending in social activities reduces the business productivity, this leads to higher production costs. If the business is operating in international markets with other firms that do not have to support such additional costs, the socially responsible ones will have a competitive disadvantage. Another argument is that the businesses that would support social activities will have additional social power. Davis states that business is one of the two or three most powerful institutions in society at the present time, giving extra social responsibilities to the business would result in an excessive concentration of power which will reduce the viability of our free society. In addition, Davis believes that although some people want businesses to be more responsible and socially involved, some dont. This lack of agreement among the public may result in a lack of broad support for the businesses and thus social frictions and disagreements. Finally, one of the most relevant arguments given by Keith Davis is probably the fact that businessmen are not accountable to people, but only to their stockholders. It should therefore be unwise to give them responsibility in areas where they are not accountable! This idea of non-accountability of businessmen and managers is also used by Michael C. Jensen (2002). Jensen criticizes the stakeholder theory as stated by Freeman (1984), Clarkson Principles (1999) and others because it contains no conceptual specification of how to make the tradeoffs among stakeholders that must be made. This makes the theory damaging to firms and to social welfare. According to Freedman, as stated by Jensen (p. 254), The à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ definition of stakeholder [is] any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of an organizations purpose. This includes shareholders, customers, employees, suppliers, but also the people who might be affected directly or indirectly by the companys business, through for example the damages to the environment, the layoffs, the corruption etc. Adopting the stakeholder theory brings businesses to be socially responsible. Jensen states that the managers who adopt this stakeholder theory will do what they want, spend the business money in social or other activities which are of no interest to the business or to the stakeholders, and will not be accountable for that. He thinks that the stakeholder theory must be inline with the long-term objective of value maximization. Only by keeping in mind that the value needs to be maximized that managers will find the good trade-offs between the different stakeholders. In a less extreme position than Freidman and the other authors cited above, Patrick Primeaux and John Stieber (1994), as well as Josie Fisher (2004) believe that social responsibility and long-term profit are not incompatible, and that being socially responsible could be converted into business opportunities. Orlitzky (2003), Russo and Fouts (1997) and Waddock and Graves (1997) (as cited by Husted and Salazar, 2006, p. 75) even found that corporate social performance has a positive impact on the firms financial performance! However, several different researches employed a variety of theories and methodologies to study the potential relationship between corporate social responsibility activities and other traditional measures of a firms success (Mahoney and Roberts, 2007). The results are confusing. Rim Makni, Claude Francoeur and Franà §ois Bellavance (2009) found in their study that socially responsible firms experience lower profits and reduced shareholder wealth, which in turn limits the socially responsible investments. Bryan W. Husted and Josà © de Jesus Salazar (2006) state on their side, that a business can not make maximum profit while investing in social responsibility activities. Rather, great overall social and financial output can be achieved only when businesses adopt a strategic approach, than an altruistic approach. Kant would have argued that even if the outcomes of such businesses actions might be beneficial to the society, the intention of those businesses is bad in the first place. As far as people are used as a means for those businesses to maximize their own profit, they are not ethical. All of the above are arguments that tend to support Freidmans theory, which in turn states that a business must concentrate on maximizing profit. The less extreme approaches suppose that it is possible to conciliate social activities and profit maximization, but the latter must remain the primary goal of any business. Keith Davis, in his call for a social responsibility of businesses, puts forward the arguments that acting socially would serve the long-run self-interest of the business, enhance the public image and the viability of the business, avoid any government regulation, serve the stockholders interest and prevent any future social problems, thus before all maximizing the long-term profit for the shareholders. The whole issue of ethics and business ethics is a complex one. Companies are made up of people. Multinationals are made up of many different nationalities. Several opponents to Freidmans theory do believe that businesses are part of society and as such they should reflect society norms. Companies, especially multinational ones, do have responsibilities in the world and have to be a positive influence. If a company is not ethical, then it will not survive as a company. Marjorie Kelly believes that maximizing profit and returns to shareholders isnt a legitimate mandate. Indeed, she argues that the shareholders are in effect not financing the public corporations. The money that a shareholder invests in a public company does not go to the company itself but rather to other speculators. Such investments go to the public corporation only when new common stock is sold, which is a rare event. Actually only the founders, entrepreneurs and initial investors are bearing the risk associated with a business. 99% of the money which is invested further on in those companies goes to the original investors and not to the company. So in effect, an established business is not getting any money from the shareholders, who are rather exchanging their stocks and gambling on several fields. They are thus not the legitimate owners or funders of the business which in turn does not have to care about their desires more than those of other stakeholders and the community in g eneral. Freidman, in his argumentation, states that only individuals in a business can have moral responsibility, but every business is made up of the decisions freely taken and approved collectively. The responsibility in such a decision process is thus not reduced to an individual, but rather it is a collective and shared responsibility among all the individuals who drive a business. As soon as the decisions are freely chosen and approved by the collection of individuals who run the business, they are all responsible for the outcomes of those decisions and are subject to moral evaluation. Furthermore, by seeking solely the profit maximization, some managers might allow or induce actions which may be illegal but are for sure immoral, like aggressive selling techniques or untrue publicity. They are, for this, acting in an immoral way and are responsible for that. Social responsibility refers to the obligations businesses have toward society. These are obligations that ought to be fulfilled; which indicates a normative use of the term (Josie Fisher, 2004). The author opposes to the classical economic view of Freidman and Levitt, the socioeconomic view that offers a broader account of social responsibility. Business has obligations that go beyond pursuing profits and include protecting and improving society. Boatright (2000), as cited by Fisher (2004, p.396), goes on to say that by implication businesses must be willing to forgo a certain measure of profit in order to achieve noneconomic ends. Backman, also cited by Fisher (2004, p396), identified some examples of corporate social responsibility: Employment of minority groups, reduction in pollution, greater participation in programs to improve the community, improved medical care, improved industrial health and safety. The social responsibility of a business is then to comply with the behaviours and norms that society expects business to follow. This focus on the socioeconomic view is a normative discourse, as it emphasizes how society believes business ought to behave. Several studies and researches have been conducted in the last decades on the business ethics and on how companies ought to behave. Those studies concentrate on three main subjects inherent to todays business: The globalization, the sustainability and the stakeholder theory presented earlier. Indeed, in recent times, multinational companies have grown rapidly and are yielding an excessive power. Those firms have also invaded multiple countries and cultures and are having an excessive economic and political power especially in smaller and poorer countries. They therefore are now responsible for their actions that might greatly impact such countries. Taking benefit of the poorness of local population to practice low wages or employ children is for sure a socially irresponsible action of those businesses. The second concept that has been studied in the recent ethics researches is sustainability. The sustainability is about the long-term effect of any business (or other) operation on any external factor like environment. As a matter of intergenerational equity, it is the businesses responsibility to consider the effects of their activities on the natural resources and the society and to repair any damages that can affect the future generations rights and equity. It is therefore the businesses responsibility to act sustainably. The third concept is the stakeholder theory, which has been presented earlier. The normative discourse of business ethics states that businesses ought to take into account the interests of all stakeholder groups. The different arguments presented so far range from those supporting Freidmans statement that any business social responsibility is to solely maximize the profits to the shareholders, those who support that a business can and has the duty to be socially responsible and try to advance the public good as far as this will have a beneficial impact on the long-run value and profits of the company, and finally those arguments supporting that any business ought to act socially, sustainably, invest in programmes that benefit the public interest, and be morally responsible for the outcomes of its operations. The supporters of this last view believe that businesses have to adapt their objectives, from solely financial, to a higher level which is all of the stakeholders, the public, the environment and the future generations interest. The latter arguments are therefore normative, and do provide a view about what business ought to be. This is the aim of the business ethics philosophy. From a more practical point of view, and considering how the companies are acting in todays world, it is true that many of them are advocates and practitioners of Corporate Social Responsibility. Many CEOs, especially in Europe, are convinced that basic capitalism fails to serve the public interest, and are promoting moral and socially responsible actions in their companies, like treating employees well, encouraging loyalty among customers and suppliers, avoiding any investment in unethical markets or countries that pay low wages and employ children, saving energy and recycling. However, no one doubts that this is not a standard yet. Social responsibility is not the norm today, and although some practitioners of Corporate Social Responsibility are getting some benefit, like a good public image, many of them are disadvantaged because of such social investments that some competitors do not support. Also, in the name of social responsibility, some multinational companies stopped their investments in poor countries where wages are very low. This is having a negative impact on those countries concerned that would have benefited from those investments. It is the aim of the business ethics discipline to study and propose what businesses ought to do and how they ought to behave. But I do think that it is the role of the governments to impose some basic moral principles and behaviours that must be respected by each and every business. Businessmen ought to behave morally but they will never all do so. A critical morality of moralities or a Metaethics has to be imposed by a higher institution governments- in order to guarantee the basis for equity. Conclusion In this work, different arguments for and against the 40-year old but still so famous statement of Milton Friedman that The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits have been presented and discussed. The normative discourse stating how business ought to behave is for sure morally and ethically against this statement and its arguments will sound both moral and logical for any mind. However, reality is far from the moral ideal. In my opinion, it is the governments responsibility to impose a minimum ethical code to be respected by businesses and individuals to guarantee the equity of rights and advance the public interest.

Eastman kodak Essay

Evaluating the financial condition of Eastman Kodak can be troublesome. Per my evaluation of their quarterly report which was found at http://www. kodak. com, some red flags have appeared that the auditors should be aware of. These stand out and should have special focus on. This quarterly report is based on the companies’ business activities as well as their subsidiary companies between the reporting periods of January 1, through December 31, 2011. It has been speculated that some of the previous reports have not been dealing on actual performance data basis (Avery, 2012). While many believe this to be impossible and untrue, however, there seems to be that there were no exceptions reported or noticed on prior reports. Once again, while analyzing this report there seems to be correspondence in regards to data exclusion from the outsourced operations and data for leased facilities were indicated. The cash flow analysis of Kodak has always been cause for concern. The Kodak companies the past several years have had many issues as seem by the financial statements. â€Å"The internal cash flows are negative indicating that this company has a financial problem (Arnold, 2012). Items such as the operating costs, investing, and the use of the cash and its outflow when it has cash are what we consider internal cash flows. Kodak company is aimed its focus on funding numerous functions and operations. This funding was to make sure that the IP licensing strategy would a hit. For this to be applicable, the company would have to sell its assets. â€Å"Thus in order to be successful in the IP portfolio strategy EASTKOD 3 Eastman Kodak set there sites aimed at getting funds of over $200 million and then to have licensing transactions to generate between #250 and $350 million dollars (Anderson, 2012). Some of the red flags that they should be aware of can be economic factors, earning problems, excessive debt. With these factors in mind it is clearly visible that Kodak focused on clearing their work on the idea of sustainability that they had place in process within the 2011 fiscal year. For Kodak to stay competitive they had to initiate new programs to generate business in the areas in which they operate. These programs would boost business. â€Å"After the 2011 quarterly report, Kodak was more sustainable and looked to prosper and take advantage of their customer’s economic, environmental, and social performance in order to maintain and attain a profitable , sustainable, and digital company (Anderson, 2011). With these red flags mentioned, Kodak and its position economically, either would attract or not attract investors. This is due to the fact that the economic factors such as the earnings of an organization give an idea of what its profits, and the shareholders value to be. The public willingness to invest and to get companies to fall in line with them, Eastman Kodak is not an attractive company. This is true due to its low profits the company makes based on its last quarterly report. Kodaks last quarterly report and its last 3 previous years indicate that the company if financially falling. During the audit procedure they should be alerted that Eastman Kodak has adjusted its financial statements making its return on capital and its economic stability unreliable. Eastman Kodaks free cash flow is well below par. Their strategy has failed, and this will not attract new investors. The financial statement show that the cash flow has reduced and this is partly contributed to the board and the lack there of on their fiduciary duties.

Interpersonal communication Essay

The book basically talks about the different ways on how to win friends and become popular. Dale Carnegie gives different tips on how to make different people like you, and how to make others accept and believe in what you are thinking. Carnegie basically makes it easier for readers to understand more effective relationship styles. Carnegie used to teach general public speaking. However, he realized that such wasn’t enough for effective business and felt that his students lacked the skill of simply making friends with new people, which is why he made a book on how to make new friends and other relational issues. Dale Carnegie also felt that he lacked such skills himself. So this is a two way experience for him, both teaching and learning at the same time. Digging in to the deeper purpose of creating such book, the Carnegie Institute of Technology made a study which showed that a financial successful person owes 15 percent to their technical knowledge and the rest to â€Å"skill in human engineering-to personality and the ability to lead people† (Carnegie, 1964). Another reason was that, it is easy to find applicants who had the perfect skills for their jobs- engineering, medicine, accounting, you name it, there are plenty of skilled professionals out there. However, there are not a lot who possess such skills and at the same time have the ability to have effective interpersonal communication and relational skills, which is why Dale Carnegie developed a book which serves as a manual for those who lack such skills. Lastly, there is a need for a book which basically serves as a guide for dummies on how to get other people to like them and how to find more friends. Becoming an effective leader is also a part of what the book teaches, and is what readers will get out of reading it. During the first part of Dale Carnegie’s â€Å"How to Win Friends and Influence People†, he talks about the basic styles and techniques that you can handle people. He basically had three principles in this topic. The first principle is to work with people without criticizing, condemning or complaining. It is important for aspiring leaders to omit such acts because people will not follow a leader who does not listen to what they are saying. The second principle says to â€Å"give honest and sincere appreciation† (Carnegie, 1964). According to Carnegie, flattery is always effective. Of course, everybody wants to feel good. It is so effective in fact that â€Å"Even Queen Victoria was susceptible to flattery† (Carnegie, 1964). However, the negative thing with flattery is that, it is fake and insincere. What Carnegie suggests is for us to give out something positive and honest- which is called appreciation. There is always something positive in everybody, and that is what every effective leader needs to look for. The last principle is to get from other people the â€Å"eager want†. Carnegie mentioned that, we should not talk about what we want, because nobody else will listen to us. Instead, we should talk about something we know others would like to talk about. This will definitely get them interested, especially in doing something for you. Part two of the book discusses the different ways to get people to like you. The first principle tells us to become genuinely interested in other people. Carnegie used his dog as an example or even just dogs generally. They did not study psychology to know how people could like them. They simply liked people genuinely, which is why people liked them back. If you like someone, it becomes almost impossible to resist liking you back. If you genuinely like other people, then you will be welcome anywhere you go (Carnegie, 1964). The next principle is fairly easy and sounds quite simple. However, it is forgotten most of the time, and people forget the magic that it does. One word: Smile. Carnegie mentioned that the smile that people wear on their faces is far more important than what clothes they wear. And the saying â€Å"actions speak louder than words† is very true. Smiles are very important because they say â€Å"I like you, you make me happy. I am glad to see you. † (Carnegie, 1964). This can be proven when babies smile and everybody around them melts. It is the same thing with adults, as long as smiles are genuine. Third principle for people to like you is the simple gesture of remembering the names of the people you meet. It always isn’t a good impression to ask for people’s names the second time around, much more the third. Remembering names are so important in fact that when you â€Å"Remember that name and call it easily, and you have paid a subtle and very effective compliment† (Carnegie, 1964). However, when you forget one name, it will give you a bad impression and will work to your disadvantage. The last three principles of the second part of Carnegie’s work are all connected to each other. First is to â€Å"be a good listener and encourage other to talk about themselves†, next is to talk about the other person’s likes and interests and not talk about you. And the last, is to â€Å"make the other person feel important, sincerely†. These three are very important because if you only care about yourself and talk only about what you feel is interesting, and act like you are the only important person in the world, then no one will want to neither talk nor work with you. In fact, no one will even want to see you. Being egotistic and self centered will not do a person any good in this world. (Carnegie, 1964) Part three of dale Carnegie’s book is How to Win People to Your Way of Thinking. Principle one talks about arguments. The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it†, this is what Carnegie (1964) thinks about arguments. This is very true as, while you think you are good in winning arguments, you will never know when you might find someone who is better than you. And people always admire those who walk away from trouble. To sum the third part up, it simply says that you are to respect the way others think, a nd acknowledge their opinions. Even though you do not believe in what they are saying, you must let them speak out, because your opinion is not the only important one. Others should feel like they have a say in things, before they will believe in what you are saying. It is just a matter of reciprocity. â€Å"If we know we are going to be rebuked anyhow, isn’t it far better to beat the other person to it and do it ourselves? † (Carnegie, 1964) It is always good to admit your mistakes. Owning up to your mistakes makes people admire you more, and believe that you are actually human. In the same way that you are never to tell someone that they are wrong just because they do not agree to what you think and they have their own opinions. The first thing that you will need to get from others is respect, and the only way to get that is by showing respect to them first. For the last principles, it just says that in order to get people to believe in the way you think, you must believe in theirs as well. So in conclusion for the third part of the book, it simply means that you have to respect other people’s views, opinions and ideas in order to get them to believe yours as well. Be a Leader: How to Change People Without Giving Offense or Arousing Resentment. This is the last part of Dale Carnegie’s book. Being a leader is never easy. It may look like the easiest part of a job because you get to tell others to do the job for you. However, more responsibilities come with being a leader, such as all the different decisions that should be made. Carnegie mentions that a leader should develop an attitude that praises and appreciates the people that work for him. Another major thing that leaders should develop is before telling others what they have done wrong, tell something that they have done right first because â€Å"It is always easier to listen to unpleasant things after we have heard some praise of our good points. † (Carnegie, 1964). One more important thing for leaders to do is to â€Å"talk about your mistakes before criticizing the other person† (Carnegie, 1964). This is important, as it will not make the others feel so inferior to you as a leader. Leaders should be more humble than the rest because once superiority complex works its way in, the system will stop working. Becoming an example is another one of the most important things that a leader should follow. Encouragements are also one of the best things to do, most especially after some criticisms. I used to believe that I could communicate to others fairly well. I had a lot of friends and people liked to be around me. But after reading Dale Carnegie’s book, I have realized that I was not that effective and that there are still a lot of areas that I need to improve in. First of all, I criticize, condemn and complain a lot. I lack giving out appreciations as well. Most of the time I am self centered and whenever there are conversations I engage in, I mostly talk about topics that I prefer without even considering whether or not the one I’m conversing with is interested with what we are talking about. I also lack the heart of admitting my mistakes quickly. I sometimes tell people that they’re wrong directly, even just for not sharing the same opinion as I do. I even have the tendency to always get into arguments, even when I have the chance to avoid or get out of it. I am not comfortable in talking about my mistakes as I feel embarrassed and want to bury them in the past. One of the things that I know I am strong at is remembering a person’s name. Carnegie has mentioned that this will make people feel very important, which means I have made a lot of people important already, just by this gesture. Although I talk a lot, I make it a point to let others talk as well. I believe I am a good listener, which makes people look for me when they need someone to talk to. I am very free in giving out encouragements, as long as I feel the people are down in whatever they are doing. Even in the littlest improvement a person makes or adjusts, I notice it and give them praise. I give out constructive criticism as well, and is open to taking some for myself from others. So all in all, I have a lot more to work on, even though I have some positive traits that I already carry with me. Reading on will definitely help me improve in different aspects. I have asked my father, brother and mother to give me a peer analysis in my communication skills and my different ways of dealing with other people. They have more or less the same answers and I will only generalize and summarize the answers that they have given. They have mentioned that I criticize and condemn other people a lot may it be directly or even behind their backs. My brother told me that I judge immediately anything I see that does not pass my so called standards. Carnegie believes that this should be avoided in order to find more people to like you, to have more friends. One thing that they appreciate about me is that I give a lot of encouragements to people. They feel that this is when I am most effective when dealing with people. Even my father told me that he appreciates it when he sees me encourage different people. He also mentioned that he has seen how this affects the different people I am dealing with, and can see the changes that such encouragements have brought about. My mother mentioned that I do not easily admit my mistakes. She said that I even reason out to my actions, even if I already know that what I did was wrong. As much as I hate to admit this, it is nothing but the truth. I find it hard for me to say that I was wrong, mostly because of pride. They all agreed to one thing however, and that is I only like to talk about things that I like, and that I do not even ask them what they want to talk about or what they are interested in. This is one of the things Carnegie has mentioned that should not be around when we want to have more friends or when we want people to like us. Again, I can see that there is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to relationships and communication. The first thing that I want to remove from my negative attitude is the inability to admit when I am wrong or I have made a mistake. I think this is the first thing that would turn other people off from wanting to talk or become friends. I believe for me to be able to do this, I must lower down my pride. This will not be easy, and will take a lot of time. But if I want to improve my lifestyle, then this will definitely have to be the first thing off my negative list. The next thing I must make a move on is towards removing the act of always criticizing other people. It has almost become automatic for me to do this, as I easily judge people even at the first look or impression. This has cost me a lot of friends and friendships that might have started. I think the way to start taking this negative act from me is by always thinking positively and giving other people a chance- a chance to show their true selves. Being judgmental has always been a problem and will be a bigger problem if I do not act up on it immediately. Being less self centered and egotistic will be very important if I want to start new and stronger relationships with other people. These are only some of the things that I think I need to change. Dale Carnegie has helped me realize a lot of things. His work has definitely taught me a lot of things; things that are essential in day to day living. After all, no one can live alone. Friends and relationships with people will help us live more harmoniously and Dale Carnegie’s â€Å"How to Win Friends and Influence People† has taught me how I can have more friends and develop friends a lot easier.

The Self Destruction of Willy Loman - Death of a Salesman

In Death of a Salesman, by Arthur Miller, Willy Lomans life seems to be slowly deteriorating. It is clear that Willys predicament is of his own doing, and that his own foolish pride and ignorance lead to his downfall. Willys self-destruction involved the uniting of several aspects of his life and his lack of grasping reality in each, consisting of, his relationship with his wife, his relationship and manner in which he brought up his children, Biff and Happy, and lastly his inability to productively earn a living and in doing so, failure to achieve his American Dream. Willys relationship with his wife is clearly a cause of his collapse. Willy neglected to demonstrate honesty in his relationship with his wife. The reader is told†¦show more content†¦He believes that he is a terrific salesman. His imaginative thinking wont let him accept the fact that he has become a failure instead of a wealthy businessman. Willy believes that to be well liked is the means to being successful. Willy also struggles through confusion and contradicts himself, Ill go to Hartford, Im very well liked in Hartford, the trouble is, Linda, people dont seem to take to me(36). This shows how Willy has no self-image, and therefore cannot survive in the business world. His lack of grasping the obvious, is truly a downfall. One critic states, We do not learn about Lomans dilemmas through Lomans eyes, because we know more about his failures than he does(Elsom 376). Clearly, Willy is foolish to not be able to decipher that he is a failure in the business world. S ince Willy cant earn a reasonable living to support his household, he relies on borrowing money from his neighbor, Charley. When Willies boss, Howard, relieves Willy of his position, he is completely distraught and in disarray. Charley often offers Willy a job, however he is too senseless to ever except the offer. In fact, in reply to Charleys offer, Willy responds that he already has a job, purely out of stubbornness and foolish pride. Willys American Dream was to become a successful businessman, this is never achieved, and as Jonathan Moniaci stated, Willy has lost at trying to live the American DreamÂ…. Biff and Happy are both aware that WillysShow MoreRelated The Self Destruction Of Willy Loman - Death Of A Salesman Essay1001 Words   |  5 Pages In Death of a Salesman, by Arthur Miller, Willy Loman’s life seems to be slowly deteriorating. It is clear that Willy’s predicament is of his own doing, and that his own foolish pride and ignorance lead to his downfall. Willy’s self-destruction involved the uniting of several aspects of his life and his lack of grasping reality in each, consisting of, his relationship with his wife, his relationship and manner in which he brought up his children, Biff and Happy, and lastly his inability to productivelyRead MoreThe Collapse Of A Cherished Businessman1571 Words   |  7 PagesCrucible, All My Sons, and Death of a Salesman. First staged in 1949, Death of a Salesman is considered Miller’s greatest and most critically acclaimed work. Set in twentieth century New York, Death of a Salesman highlights the tale of the perfectly named Willy Loman, a common, failing, itinerant salesman from New York. The story outlines the hardships and struggles of Loman’s w ork life and his deep family issues with his grown sons. Over the course of the play, Loman slowly spirals uncontrollablyRead MoreDeath Of A Salesman Is A Tragedy In The Sense That It Displays1015 Words   |  5 PagesDeath of a Salesman is a tragedy in the sense that it displays the consequences of commitment of one s life towards an idealistic goal such as the American Dream. Willy Loman fails to see that he is an unsuccessful salesman and to escape that harsh reality, he constantly reminisces his past. Which beg the question, is Willy Loman a tragic hero? He may not be a conventional tragic hero but he indeed had a downfall however, he wasn’t in a distinguished position to say the least. He was everybody yetRead MoreArthur Millers Dissatisfaction with the American People Expressed in Three of His Major Works1632 Words   |  7 PagesCrucible, Death of a Salesmen, and A View from the Bridge. As defined by Dictionary.com tragedy is a dramatic composition, often in verse de aling with a serious or somber theme typically that of a great person destined through a flaw of character or conflict with some overpowering force, as fate or society to downfall or destruction. Miller represents this definition of tragedy through his characters Willy Loman and Eddie Carbone and their relation to the common people. Death of a Salesman is a workRead More Importance of Self-Image in the Loman Family1483 Words   |  6 Pages Published in 1949, Arthur Miller’s Death of Salesman is a post Second World War American drama that highlights the plight of isolation and desolation experienced by the common man, as symbolized by Willy. The play deals with the society, life’s absurdity, various internal and external conflicts, death and above all, the tragedy of existence. It is located in the industrial society of the twentieth century where the pressure to succeed and the financial difficulties seem insurmountable. The playRead MoreA Tragic Fate Caused by a Society Filled with Realism Essay1068 Words   |  5 Pagesetc. Death of a salesman is Arthur Millers most famous and notable play. It is a modern tragedy, the hero, Willy Loman is not grand and noble, but a common man, however, he is a symbol for Americans in the postwar period of growing wealth and affluence. Theatrical commentators generally hold that this play not only has high artistic value, but also has profound social significance. The American Great Depression in 1930s is the background of this play; the story is about a common salesman who committedRead MoreBetrayal in Death of a Slaesman and Stone Angel1075 Words   |  5 Pagesdamage, which can eventually lead to personal destruction. â€Å"Stone Angel† by Margaret Lawrence and â€Å"Death of a Salesman† by Arthur Miller, are two works of literature that put that very statement into context. Although, the theme of betrayal is evident in both pieces, the protagonists of the different plots – Hagar Shipley and Willy Loman – experience betrayal in two very different fashions. Hagar Shipley is destroyed by her loss of independence and Willy Loman is forced into taking drastic and unnecessaryRead MoreSimilarities And Differences Between Willy Loman And Death Of A Salesman1112 Words   |  5 PagesWilson and Death of a Salesman was written by Arthur Miller are two plays that can be considered different in terms of their plot. Both plays have two very different cultural backgrounds. The background affects each protagonist therefore differently. However, there are also similarities beyond the plot. Despite the different backgrounds of each protagonist or main characters, they are both trying to achieve their dreams. They both fail ironically in similar ways .Willy Loman in the death of a salesmanRead More Willy Loman as a Tragic Hero in Death of a Salesman Essay examples919 Words   |  4 PagesWilly Loman as Tragic Hero in Death of a Salesman Willy Loman, the troubled father and husband in Arthur Millers Death of a Salesman, can be classified as a tragic hero, as defined by Aristotle in his work, Poetics. In Aristotles Poetics, a tragic hero was defined as one who falls from grace into a state of extreme despair. Willy, as we are introduced to him, becomes increasingly miserable as he progresses from a dedicated, loving father, though not without flaws, into a suicidal, delusionalRead MoreWilly Loman Tragic Hero730 Words   |  3 Pages1949, the forlorn life of Willy Loman is introduced in Arthur Miller’s â€Å"Death of a Salesman†. At this time the American Dream was something everyone craved during the peak of suburbia. The American Dream was the golden standard of living like Donna Reed, all wrapped up with a white picket fence. To Willy Loman, The American Dream was not the golden standard, but the only standard. His wife Linda dutifully greeting him as he came home from a successful day as a salesman, and sits down to dinner with