POVJ 1&2 - POV journal- received 17/25 PDF

Preview

Summary

POV journal- received 17/25...

Description

Ethics and Management in the 21st Century Is the Neo-liberalist approach detrimental to the eradication of Modern Slavery, i.e., the introduction of the Modern Slavery Act? The Neo-liberalist approach strives on the development for markets to be free from state intervention. While this has many economic benefits such as the ability to practice in free trade, it’s success in eradicating Modern Slavery is debatable. This is notable as 40 million (Thomson Reuters n.d.) people worldwide are still in slavery, with 15,000 in Australia (Global Slavery Index 2018). In relation to the new Modern Slavery Act enacted in 2019, the Neo-liberalist approach is detrimental in eradicating Slavery. The Act asks businesses to report on the risks in both operations and supply chains on their financial reporting. However, with the neo-liberal approach it is critical to note that no penalties are imposed if businesses fail to lodge a report or lodge an incomplete report. Another issue that coincides with the notion of no state intervention is that no anti-slavery commissioner has been appointed to oversee compliance with the Legislation. A lack of regulation and strict sanctions leads to businesses taking Slavery, and the power they have to eradicate it, very lightly. This becomes a poor reflection of the Government as the country becomes negatively perceived by International Bodies such as the United Nations. Alternatively, focusing on offshore suppliers is notable that the Neo-liberalist approach has little impact on how this particular Legislation affects Modern Slavery. State sovereignty plays a role in this as individual countries are able to act as they please. The response to claims of offshore supply chain risks in slavery is complex and would not be referred to the Australian Federal Police (David White 2019). With many companies in Australia having offshore suppliers, such as H&M, it is impractical to impose the same regulations on every business. This accentuates that offshore supply chains are strenuous to oversee. This shows that whether neo-liberalism exists or not, it is extremely difficult to monitor International Law violations, such as slavery, being committed in other countries. Thus, according to suppliers Neo-liberalism is not detrimental to eradicating Modern Slavery. However, the Neo-liberalist approach cannot sufficiently uphold the interests of the community of ethical sourcing and supplying. It is necessary that the Government interferes in the business’ practices as they need to ensure Citizens’ safety. Vulnerable people such as women and children are usually targeted for forced and child labour. Business’ compliance with the legislation and a more relaxed Neo-liberalist approach will ensure that Modern Slavery risks become the top priority. With companies being increasingly privatised, it leads the general community to become more wary of their actions. Without transparency from companies, and proper reporting of risks in the operations and supply chains, it is possible that they will be shunned by the community. Hence, a strict Neo-liberalist approach will lead to the downfall of businesses, especially in regard to the community’s ethical standards. Conclusively, economic liberalisation increases the chances of modern slavery (Peksen, Blanton, S & Blanton, R 2017). Thus, it is evident that a strict neo-liberalist approach is hindering the eradication of slavery. Despite the claim that it poses no great threat as the Legislation cannot be heavily regulated, it is vital that Government intervention occurs to protect innocent civilians and minimise potential risk.

Ethics, Diversity and Discrimination Should companies have a quota for women to be employed? Gender inequality, specifically lack of women in leadership, is an ongoing issue. With the uprise of feminism, a term to ensure women and men are treaty equally (Kathy Caprino 2017), comes the notion of quotas to ensure discrimination during the hiring process does not occur. However, the response to setting quotas in the workplace is unstable. From a women’s perspective, which overarches onto the community’s interests, the introduction of quotas is unequivocal. Females only make up 32.6% of the board positions in ASX200 companies (Workplace Gender Equality Agency 2021). With statistics like this it is necessary for equal representation in the workplace, especially knowing that gender discrimination occurs. Australia’s soft laws regarding women participation has led to hiring discrimination where women are being asked their marital status and plans for pregnancy (Becker, Fernandes & Weichselbaumer 2019). Introducing quotas in the workplace will limit unconscious discrimination where males have a higher chance of being hired because of their gender. This is revealed in the experiment at Yale where job candidates were given the same CV but with their male and female names switched (Helen Maynard-Casely 2012). The result showed male bias in the hiring process. Thus, the introduction of quotas will facilitate a more just hiring process for women and eliminate unconscious discrimination and male bias. From a Shareholder’s perspective introducing a quota in the workplace might not be an ideal situation. The phrase ‘token appointments’ is associated with this as it has been stated that diversity regulations lead to under-qualified people being employed (Akshaya Kamalnath 2020). India has been used as a case study where, despite the percentage of female board directors being increased, women directors became mere tokens and were not expected to contribute (Akshaya Kamalnath 2020). Shareholders would like the best people for the job to gain the most return shares, however, tokenistic appointments of under-qualified women lead to poor business performance. The general public, namely a vast majority of males, will also disagree with the introduction of a quota on the basis that it will be disadvantageous for those male workers that are fit for the role but are unable to get it due to the female quota being unmet. In spite of this, the quota will be helpful for Unions who aim to address gender equality in the workforce. It will diminish claims of discrimination faced during the hiring process such as females not being hired after being questioned about plans of motherhood. It will ensure greater diversity in the workforce and further eradicate claims of male bias. This will also aid Unions by allowing more female employees to join them and negotiate further inequality they might face (Bivens et al. 2017), such as unequal pay and discrimination. Unions will be able to fulfil their duty while ensuring women have the adequate resources to diminish stereotypes and sexist remarks. In my opinion, companies should have a female quota to facilitate diversity in the workplace. Despite Shareholder’s claiming this will lead to unqualified women being hired, it is noteworthy that this quota is only there to ensure qualified women are employed and not discriminated against because of their gender, thus, ruling out male bias....