CLHR 330 - Project #2 Codes of Ethics of AHRD

Title Your Name Subject and Section Professor’s Name Date 1 What type of ethical codes are the AHRD Standards of Ethics? How are they different from the ones used by Unilever shown on Pages 195-196 of the supplementary reading material on codes of ethics (i.e., purpose, contents, etc.)? The AHRD Standards of Ethics are principle-based or motivational ethical codes, providing broad guidelines or directions that include fairness, integrity, and professional responsibility. These standards are intended to guide an ethical culture in professional development, not rules (AHRD, n.d.). On the other hand, Unilever's ethical codes, as presented in the supporting materials on code of ethics, are compliance-oriented and precise, listing out tangible prohibitions regarding employee actions or lack of them, such as the prohibition of bribery, of engaging in materially non-transparent transactions, of failing to act in environmentally friendly manners. Unilever's codes are for corporate governance where directions are in the provision line accompanied by legal and regulatory guidelines to Unilever that enhance business ethics and competitive equity. Compared to the AHRD Standards that apply generalized norms and recommendations regarding the conduct of professionals, Unilever's codes offer detailed and specific implementable guidelines for measuring compliance and reporting noncompliance within the firm's organizational structure. This is another crucial distinction showing how compared to AHRD's codes, which are intended to encourage ethical behavior, Unilever's codes are legalistic in the way they seek to ensure the realization of specific business practices fit into their schemes (Managing Business Ethics, n.d., pp.195-196; AHRD, n.d.). 2 What is your understanding of 'Exploitative Relationships' on Page 9 of the AHRD Standards of Ethics? How is this concept similar to or different from some of the concepts or terms covered in the textbook? The guideline used by AHRD Standards of Ethics, known as "Exploitative Relationships," dictates that one cannot capitalize on the vulnerabilities of those with supervisory or evaluative responsibilities, including students or employees. This list precludes a sexual relationship with anyone they supervise because such a relationship might cloud their judgment and lead to exploitation. Further, the conduct of HRD professionals should not be a means of harassing or putting down individuals on grounds of race, age, or gender identity. On the other hand, the textbook sample is more concentrated on the practicality of compliance and business Ethics, especially in the business world where Corporate America's compliance centers on fair and legal conduct. The AHRD concept corresponds to ethical relations with other people in the organization. There is a primary emphasis on avoiding harm and being ethical, while corporate codes emphasize compliance with the law and organizational integrity. Still, both codes emphasize ethical behavior. However, the AHRD seems more oriented toward relationships (AHRD, n.d., p. 7; Bredeson & Goree, 2012; Managing Business Ethics, n.d.). The AHRD's "Exploitative Relationships" standard not only covers the non-use, in supervisory, evaluative, or otherwise another position of power, of this power to exploit the subordinated person but also prohibits fraternization, intimacy, flirting, and others between superordinate-subordinate, or other unequal, individuals. This requires learner awareness of casual engagement and how it interferes with rational decision-making, efficiency, and the welfare of the people involved (AHRD, n.d., pp. 7-9). This standard extends much further than sexual relationships and harassment; it also requires professionals to actively make sure that relationships do not cross a line into the unethical, improper, or invasive. It hinders any preference that may prevail out of close association based on relation, power, similarity in thought processes, or affili...