Society and its leaders are constantly faced with decisions framed in moral terms: ethics, environmental remediation, human rights, promotions, gender equity, fair pay and other issues whose impact may be both economic, social and philosophical but whose immediate consequences are financial.
The question, as the following article explains, is to what degree the concept of 'enough' is applicable. If a decision is right, then at what point is not right enough or no longer right because of the cost?
When the CVS chain of pharmacies-cum-convenience stores chose to stop selling cigarettes, it suffered billions in lost revenue. But the leaders concluded both that they were confident they could make it up - and that even if it took longer than securities analysts and shareholders might like, there were no acceptable half measures for a business whose basic premise was providing products and services to promote health.
Google's statement of purpose, 'don't be evil,' with its lack of specificity, rather pales by comparison.
The reality is that a truly moral issue has normative influence in ways that effect brand, reputation and economic fundamentals in the short and long term. Successful enterprises and the people who run them will embrace the opportunity to make that statement. JL
Michael Mitchell comments in Aeon:
Morality can’t possibly demand that we sacrifice hard-earned dollars for strangers. Could morality really require that (we) do more? Philosophers refer to versions of this concern as the ‘demandingness objection’. To justify a less demanding theory, these objectors need to explain why it is sometimes permissible not to do the best thing.