Introduction
Are there universal moral principles, or is ethics always a product of local culture? This fundamental philosophical debate has real consequences in the global economy, where differing value systems constantly clash. This article analyzes this tension, revealing how ethical theories translate into business practices – from exploitation in factories to the responsibility of corporations and consumers. It explains how companies attempt to navigate this complex moral landscape.
Ethical Universalism vs. Relativism: A Clash of Norms
On one side stands ethical universalism, which posits the existence of transcultural moral principles. Philosophers from Kant to contemporary thinkers argue that reason allows for the formulation of norms binding all humanity. In business, such principles are referred to as hypernorms – encompassing fundamental human rights, such as the prohibition of slavery or systemic discrimination, and serving as the ultimate criterion for evaluating local practices.
At the opposite pole is cultural relativism. It asserts that moral norms are inextricably linked to culture, and one cannot judge one value system by the standards of another. Its proponents view it as a defense against moral imperialism. However, this stance carries risks: if there is no external point of reference, historical atrocities cannot be universally condemned, and the argument of "local customs" becomes a convenient alibi for exploitation.
Globalization and Mechanisms of Responsibility
Globalization has revealed a dark mechanism known as the "race to the bottom". Corporations, in pursuit of cost minimization, relocate production to countries with weaker regulations, leading to the emergence of sweatshops – factories of exploitation. These are not anomalies but a systemic consequence of price pressure in global supply chains. This issue also affects Poland, albeit on a different scale, for example, in agency work models.
One response to these challenges is the Integrated Social Contracts Theory (ISCT), which attempts to reconcile global norms with local practices. It establishes the aforementioned hypernorms as a "moral floor" that no local practices can violate. This also changes the perception of business responsibility, as captured by stakeholder theory. According to this theory, a company is accountable not only to shareholders but also to employees, suppliers, and the community. An extreme form of this idea is covenantal ethics, where the relationship with a supplier is based on long-term cooperation rather than exploitation.
New Challenges and the Critique of Corporate Ethics
Contemporary ethical dilemmas are amplified by technology. Artificial intelligence raises questions about algorithmic bias and the diffusion of responsibility, while digital transformation creates the precariat – a new class of workers lacking stability. Simultaneously, the role of the consumer grows, whose choices and often conscious ignorance support unethical practices. Transparency and ideas such as fair trade aim to shift part of the responsibility to daily purchasing decisions.
In response to criticism, businesses promote concepts such as ESG or conscious capitalism. However, critics like Rawls, Pogge, and Habermas warn that without real systemic changes and authentic dialogue, ethics becomes a facade and a marketing tool. There is a risk that in a world devoid of transcendental references, ethics becomes merely a substitute for religion – a collection of managerial slogans, detached from deeper moral tradition.
Conclusion
In a world where the lines between morality and profit are increasingly blurred, ethics cannot be merely a collection of corporate slogans. It must become a living practice, rooted in authentic dialogue and concern for the common good. It becomes less a ready-made set of rules and more the art of navigating conflicting interests. Can we find an ethical compass in the labyrinth of global dependencies before market logic consumes the last bastions of justice?
📄 Full analysis available in PDF