Business ethics represents the set of rules, codes or principles that will guide the decisions of organizations towards more morality and transparency.
Concerned about the externalities of their management and production, this is reflected concretely in organizations by systems such as ethics committees or ethical charters, but other, more innovative, initiatives also exist.
Business ethics can be understood as a form of extension of the philosophy born of repeated scandals in the business world. The vision of leaders and companies as having the sole purpose of maximizing their profits is no longer acceptable today. The purely financial model of the company no longer holds and a negative a priori dye now the world of large companies, they are considered to be morally dubious.
The fundamental principle of an ethical approach is the critical retreat. She is willing to go out of her own perspective to gain height, to consider situations with a broader perspective. The ethical approach is therefore based on the crossing of points of view, the identification of the positions of others, even if they are opposed to us. The idea is not to bend to the arguments of others but to understand them well to establish his point of view on a broad, solid and rigorous analysis. To engage in an ethical approach is therefore above all to consider a variety of positions. It is necessary to question the common sense and not to bend it by reflex or by habit; moreover, it is also a matter of questioning one’s own positions, not to abandon them but to understand their origin. So the starting question might be: why do I think that? and, what makes me say that this is “good”?
Public ethics is a new paradigm in the social sciences that makes it possible to take a particular look at the behavior of public officials and social actors engaged in the construction of public problems, the regulation of their behavior and their behavior. the moral qualities and justifications of public actions.
The reference to ethics is today made in a perspective of demarcation with other modes of regulation and normative aims such as ethics and deontology. In applied ethics, it is common to say that if ethics is a mode of regulation that is essentially a self-regulating logic (based on an ideal of management responsible for the margin of autonomy), such as morality, law and deontology are rather aligned with a hetero-regulatory logic (they are based on a
regulation of behavior that is imposed by a third party).
Thus, when this distinction is applied to the paradigm of public ethics, it turns out that the field of politics is no longer considered a closed and unreachable place. Rather, it is seen as an area of interaction where a plurality of stakeholders who want to influence public action, but who must regulate themselves so as not to derail the political system, comes face to face.
The use of the notion of public ethics is fairly recent in the fields of philosophy and social sciences. It was mainly used to illustrate new phenomena peculiar to contemporary societies, namely the need to arbitrate moral debates to prevent them from degenerating and to engender important social conflicts, to understand a new political culture that emerged in order to respond to this social and cultural pluralization and to grasp the particular social issues that would unfold in the world of public problems.
Thus, referring to this notion, the first researchers in public ethics first focused on issues specific to our contemporary societies that are marked by issues related to moral and cultural pluralism. To return to the spirit of sociology, it was necessary to reflect on the new common reasons that would make it possible to establish new guidelines for living together. For most specialists in public ethics, the problem was not on the side of the lack of moral standards, on the contrary, there was rather a greater plurality of moral positions. This last social reality made it difficult to bring out new social consensus.
In light of this observation, the public ethics perspective has ventured towards the analysis of the development of public policies and the behavior of public actors. It becomes clear then that the middle.
Politics is becoming less and less risky on issues of moral significance, aware that any political stance in this area leads critics to the top of the podium to denounce government initiatives. In such debates, the social environment remains the priority arena where discourses unfold and where ideological and moral confrontations develop. It is also where strategic alliances are built that will allow the different moral representations to find themselves spokespeople, whom Becker names the moral entrepreneurs, who will try to sensitize the government actors to the need to take this problem seriously. Studies show that, in the face of the symbolic violence of these confrontations and the social fragmentation that is looming behind it, politicians are often tempted to slip away and rely on the courts.
One of the best Similarities that I noticed the business ethics and the ethic of
public administrators have is the fact that they shared a lot of values, when I talk about values I’m talking about the honesty, consistency, expertise, efficiency . For example when we talk about honesty we talk about the quality of one who is faithful to his obligations, to his commitments, who does not try to deceive; quality of what is done in keeping with the commitments made, without
deception. The second one that I want to talk about is efficiency, when we talk
about efficiency we talk about the fact that has the ability to achieve maximum
results with minimal resources. When we talk about the consistency, we talk about action which constitutes a whole whose elements are logically articulated between them, without contradictions. We can see that this is apply on the business ethics and the ethics of public administrators.
On the other hand, we can noticed that the business ethics and the ethics of
public administrators have some dissimilarities. As their have some values that
can be find on these two. There are some value that are specific. For the
business Ethics, there values are competitiveness, innovativeness, service
orientation, collegiality, self-fulfillment and sustainability. Competitiveness is It
is the ability of a person, an athlete, a company, an economic sector, an organization, the economy of a territory or a country to deal with competition, whether actual or potential. The innovativeness is quality of being innovate, this quality is very important in the business because It will open the door in many cases. The Collegiality is the principle guiding the actions of a group of people with the same status and assuming the decisions made by the majority of its members. There must have a link between your colleague and you so that the organization will work fast. For the Ethics of public administrators, the values are Social equity, transparency, responsiveness, accountability, impartiality
and selflessness. Ensuring social equality requires respect for fundamental
values such as freedom or citizenship. Social equality does not harm freedom, it
promotes it, and societies where there is deprivation of liberty are unequal
societies. you need to respect the right of others. Transparency is a relational
value that applies in all spheres of human activity. In fact, all social relationships
are matters of appreciation in the aftermath of this criterion. Responsiveness is
Ability to respond to external stimuli. You need to be open with the other so that
You will be more at ease to respond.
the proper relationship between public administrators and the business
communities for me, is the fact that their share some values even if there are
some specifics values that tend to be more for the Business ethics as for the
ethics of public administrators.