Yankee Stadium and CSR

The reading topic for Week Four of Business Ethics was Corporate Social Responsibility. While the traditional view of a corporation's purpose is to benefit its stockholders by maximizing profits, there is a competing view that says a corporation exists to serve all stakeholders. Stakeholders generically include six groups: "stockholders, employees, customers, managers, suppliers, and the local community" and the goal of management from this view is "harmonizing the legitimate interests of the primary corporate stakeholders" (Ethical Theory and Business, 48).

For me, the decision to build a new Yankee Stadium personifies Corporate Social Responsibility from the Stakeholder Model. Firstly, the New York Yankees are the New York Yankees. The most historic team in Major League Baseball has won 26 World Series' Titles and 39 American League Pennants in just 82 years. That kind of domination has created Yankees fans far and wide, and a huge market for New York Yankees paraphernalia. Simply continuing the Yankees brand seems sufficient to addressing the maximization of profits for stockholders that Milton Friedmann was so pre-occupied with. Without doing serious research, I am quite sure that there are SOME stockholders invested in Yankees Baseball other than the Steinbrenner family (who own an overwhelming majority share).

The point of the previous paragraph is that to be financially "good" to the organization's stockholder stakeholders, a new Stadium does not need to be built. Fans would still come to every home game and fill the seats at old Yankee Stadium in the Bronx. The new stadium is for the other stakeholders. New Yankee Stadium will create more comfortable workspaces and make available more modern resources for employees. It will give the local community an "upgraded" tourist attraction with additional bells and whistles for the customers' benefit (and spending privilege). New Yankee Stadium will give the the team's players and opponents state-of-the-art locker rooms. That's not to say that stockholders won't benefit as well. An increase in luxury boxes will sky-rocket revenues. The long-term asset of a new Yankee Stadium ensures that the business will survive--for perhaps another 82 years of baseball.

Perhaps then, against my initial judgement, the decision to build a new stadium in the Bronx is more of a mixed CSR model. When "a shift is made to consider long-term profitability, then there is a greater likelihood that in terms of managerial behavior, the stockholder theory and the stakeholder theory will coincide" (50). Additionally, we as baseball fans and stakeholders may have our own obligation to allow the New York Yankees to build this new stadium in the interest of its own perpetuation, regardless of whatever resentment we hold based on our unending love for "The House that Ruth Built."

The Duality of Access to Higher Education

What's the story with the United States' College Education System? In terms of socioeconomic justice, it's a mixed bag.

John Rawls' egalitarian Theory of Justice tells us that "all economic goods and services should be distributed equally except when an unequal distribution would work to everyone's advantage" (Ethical Theory and Business, 668). Thinking of Education as a primary good, or as a basic individual right, it appears to follow that John Rawls allows for unequal access to it.

Consider a recent high school graduate. Consider the same graduate as an excellent student from a low-income background, or alternatively a CEO's son or daughter who is a poor academic performer, or maybe an average student from a blue-collar family. What are the implications? Do each of these students have equal opportunity to pursue a quality college education?

Financial Aid is a hot topic for college students across the country; often it is the determining factor as to whether or not a prospective student will have access to a given institution. Is this a socioeconomic justice or disparity? Week Three's reading from Ethical Theory and Business touches on the idea of distributive justice and how its related systematic theories "attempt to elaborate how people should be compared and what it means to give people what they are due" (666). A few of the associated principles include "To each person according to individual need" and "To each person according to merit." This train of thought has a direct correlation to Financial Aid selection, and it is currently addressed by the two-tier Capitalistic Education System.

Capitalism itself does not ensure rights to Education. It encourages that "people's economic rights extend only to the acquisition and dispensation of private property" with disregard to "more substantive moral rights in the economic sphere" (670), including the level of Education demanded by today's job market. Theorists such as John Rawls realize that therein lies a conflict. While the individuals who have made significant economic contributions to society will be rewarded with profits and and an ability to more easily afford higher education for themselves and their families, the children of people who don't do as well financially will suffer. Ethical Theory of Business notes that "over the course of time in the working of capitalist markets, one group in society may gain considerable wealth and political influence, by comparison with other groups in society" (670). How many Yale or Harvard seats are already "reserved" for the children of alumni based simply on the financial ability to do so?

The two-tiered system of Educational Access previously mentioned is a mixed approach to providing high school graduates a socioeconomically-justified means of achieving the quality of life that is their birthright--not only as a United States American--but as a human being. The Business Ethics course text explains that "if people have a right to minimal material means...their rights are violated whenever economic distributions leave persons with less than that minimal level" (Ethical Theory and Business, 670). The first tier of our nation's College Education System bases the distribution of accessibility on NEED and the second tier on WANT ("better services" for purchase). On a controversial note, let's call these two tiers State Universities and Private Institutions--each of course with their own built-in systems for addressing social and economic justice...

Categorical Imperative

Immanuel Kant's fundamental moral law:

I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law.

The Moral Conflict of John Locke's Kidney

Week Two's reading from Ethical Theory and Business, Eighth Edition included on pages 18 to 30 an overview on both the Utilitarian and Kantian Ethical Theories. As I read some of the varying examples provided by the text's three editors, another and more personal example breached my thoughts.

The television series LOST had and has a remarkably diverse cast of characters, including one of my personal favorites--John Locke. As the show progresses, the viewers slowly learn of each character's "back story" and usually some interesting unknown connection one LOST castaway has with another. John Locke's back story contains one haunting standout, where his birth-father suddenly enters Locke's middle-age life for the first time and figuratively rips his son's heart out. What happened was that John's father apologized profusely for being absent from his son's entire life, and then explained that he was--at that moment--in a situation where if he didn't receive a kidney transplant immediately, he would most certainly die.

John Locke, not wanting to lose the opportunity to get to know his long-lost father, hastily surrendered his perfect-match kidney to a man he knew nothing about. While Utilitarian Ethics is often boiled down to "the greatest good for the greatest number" (Ethical Theory, 23), the point can be argued from Kantian Ethics--among other things--that "using human organs as commodities is to treat human beings as though they were merely machines" (24). The strain here follows from the fact that John Locke's father, briefly after receiving the transplant and recovering from surgery, once again pushed his frazzled son out of his life.

Immanuel Kant said that "persons should be treated as ends and never purely as means to the ends of others" (24) and further that "people must not treat another exclusively as a means to their ends" (25). Through this straightforward declaration, John Locke's father can easily be classified as having acted immorally toward his son as per Kantian Theory. How though, does the morality of John Locke's decision to give up his kidney in the first place sit?

Was Locke's donation of his own kidney disrespectful to his own person? Was his "goodwill" immoral? The 1700's moral philosopher Kant "seems to require only that each individual will the acceptance of those principles on which he or she is acting" (25). So if John Locke was truly acting freely, with no underlying immoral motive, then his choice was that of a moral man.

John Locke was a willing albeit disinformed participant of the kidney transaction, acting from a sense of obligation...or was it really for a feel-good self-interest? From page twenty-six of Ethical Theory and Business we learn that "actions motivated by self-interest alone or compassion alone cannot be morally praiseworthy" and "to be deserving of moral praise, a person must act from obligation." While John Locke's sense of obligation to his father may have been there, from other television glimpses of his back story we know that Locke is often depressed and is absolutely seeking a chance to redeem his life, to make a connection to a dreamt-of man, and to gain peace with his inner-self.

Kantianism implies that "if conflicts arise between one's obligation and one's other motivations--such as friendship, reciprocation, or love--the motive of obligation should always prevail" (28). It is my deduction that John Locke therefore allowed the terrible force of love to outweigh any real sense of obligation he had and that he immorally donated his own kidney, to his own father.

For Want of a Moral Standard

The Week One pre-class readings for RIT's Spring Quarter session of Business Ethics included pages 1-18 of the course text, Ethical Theory and Business Practice, and an article entitled "Baseball, Steroids, and Business Ethics: How Breaches of Trust Can Change the Game," published by the Knowledge@Wharton Network. From the very well-written overview of Major League Baseball's steroid scandal, I generally agree with Wharton professor Maurice Schweitzer's conclusive statement that what the MLB needs now is "an obvious and clear commitment to principles" as Commissioner Bud Selig seeks to close the door on the "Steroid Era." It is an issue of developing and sticking to a moral standard in a land where there is none.

On page 3 of Ethical Theory and Business Practice, we learn that "one common observation in business is that self-interest and good ethics generally coincide" and that "we continually hear that good ethics is good business." In the matter of the use of illegal performance-enhancing drugs in Baseball, however, bad ethics still seems to be good business. While the now famous "Mitchell Report" exposes many high-profile MLB athletes as 'roid users, stadium seats are still filling up as usual. As a baseball fan, this display of the robustness of America's pastime somewhat pleases me--and as a human being, the lack of awareness or seemingly total disregard for the "ethically toxic atmosphere" (Baseball, Steroids, and Business Ethics) in the Game is somewhat alarming. It is an indicator that we really don't have a bottom-line standard for what morality in professionally sports should be.

The failure of both myself and the world-at-large to notice the lack of a moral standard until now has contributed greatly to the mess that Senator George Mitchell's report has brought about. Ten years ago there was rumor of steroid use amongst the two front-runners in the great home-run race of '98, Sammy Sosa ending the season with 66 dingers and new champ Mark McGwire with 70. Two players eclipsing a 37-year old mark in a single season raised eyebrows, but no real questions. MLB baseball didn't act at all until 2002, acting prudently and imposing immediate albeit light punishments for offenders to a little-known drug policy. Actions are often more important to external stakeholders--baseball fans in this case--than the actual motivation behind the actions ( Ethical Theory, 3). Prudence took precedence over morality and it suited us just fine. After all, how do we create a moral solution to a problem such as steroid usage that we don't universally think of as immoral?

There are many ethical principles which could easily be brought into the fold of Major League Baseball's Steroid Era, however to me, the underlying fault is the inability of the fan-base, coaches, owners, and administrators to determine the moral standard. An approach needs to be chosen and the true moral standard this issue has hidden so well needs to be identified. I say it's an issue of the right versus wrong of building an unfair competitive advantage in a system that touts itself as fair. Professional sports in the United States is about talent, skill, and hard work--not the accessibility of a drug boost.

Leaders as Artists

A thought from Reframing Organizations on the art of leadership:

Artists interpret experience and express it in forms that can be felt, understood, and appreciated by others. Art embraces emotion, subtlety, ambiguity. An artist reframes the world so other can see new possibilities.

My Winter-Layer Model

Synthetics are key.

I usually wear a limited number of top layers. For just about any Winter climb (less than 30 deg. F) I wear an Under Armour Cold Gear long-sleeve ($50), and over that a micro-fleece lined soft shell jacket ($75-150). Those are non-sale prices. Sometimes I'm not very diligent at finding the deals!

On occasion, I'll even drop that top soft shell jacket and pack it--when I'm pacing fast--and go with just the Under Armour Cold Gear by itself. I either bring a wool sweater OR a Gore Tex to add on for the summit push.

On the bottom, I wear Under Armour Cold Gear tights ($50) and a snow-pant shell. I wear thin, moisture wicking socks in my BC ski boots or medium-weight reinforced socks with my hiking boots. I have recently discovered ankle-gaiters and love them ($25 EMS).

The key to my entire system is regulating the amount of heat escaping at my neck and head. The 3 key items are a neck-warmer (Turtle Fur), wool cap (I prefer fleece-lined), and headband. A neck-warmer or scarf does wonders for heat retention. I usually start with the neck-warmer and wool cap, then swap the cap for a headband, then remove the neck-warmer--all in progressive steps as I warm up.

Short stops may warrant the re-introduction of the cap or neck-warmer.

From daily running in the military in a 4-season environment, I learned that a good rule of thumb is to DRESS LIKE IT'S 20 DEGREES WARMER OUTSIDE THAN IT ACTUALLY IS.

Simplifying it for myself, if I'm comfortable to start at a trailhead, I'm wearing way too much. If I'm antsy-cold, it's probably about right.


CAPTION: In the above photo I opted for Polyester pants in lieu of snow pants.