Joe Nocera’s article in the New York Times titled, “Boycott Campaign Donations!,” discusses and elaborates upon Starbucks CEO, Howard Schultz’s idea of stopping personal or corporate donations to politicians or political parties. Through this voluntary act, Howard hopes to reorient our “dysfunctional politicians to stop putting party over country and act like the leaders they are supposed to be.” This article brings up several ethical issues in regards to business and corporate social responsibility. Whether we like the idea or not, businesses hold an enormous amount of power beyond the scope of their specific sector, especially large corporations such as Starbucks. Given this truth, it could be argued that businesses hold the responsibility to utilize this position to pursue initiatives that promote the betterment of society. Schultz did just this by leveraging his inherent power and influence to call for a more a more honest political system—one where politicians were not perpetually swayed by corporate-backed financial support. Intrinsically, every opinion Hertz holds becomes affiliated with that of the corporation he represents; I believe that it is admirable for him to take such a risk by taking an overtly opinionated stance on an ethical issue. To my knowledge, it is not very common that a CEO involves his/herself in an issue that does not directly affect their business. Schultz’s act, calling for the continuation of upstanding practices within his own company as well as business’ overall responsibility to correct political corruption, is a perfect demonstration of a business leader going beyond what is expected and using their influence to, if needed, even “spearhead a movement” to right what they believe is wrong. This article also discusses the ethicality of business that decide to use their financial power to influence politics. It is no secret that business and politics are very closely tied throughout the world, including the United...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document