HR MANAGERS AS ETHICS AGENTS OF THE STATE 139The law generally sets minimum standards. It might be criticized as falling
far short of ethical goals by some and, by others, as possibly not even ethical.
Viewed on a continuum, Baytos suggests that it operates along the lines of
‘unfair...unethical...illegal’ (cited in Grensing-Pophal1998), but for the
purpose of this chapter and, at least in the first instance, adherence to the
law will be treated as the minimum requirement for ethical behaviour. It is
acknowledged though that this assumption cannot uniformly apply, especially
under unethical legislative regimes.
The possible consequences for the HR managers, encompassing all of the
roles listed above and when acting as agents of the state (or the guardian
of the ethical and legal duties imposed by the various laws), in the anti-
discrimination or EEO area will be examined. The challenges of supporting
and enforcing EEO principles in organizations will be made especially clear by
case law from the USA which indicates that the courts do not see HR managers
as advocates of EEO beyond quite strict boundaries within organizations and
that in many cases HR managers have been excluded from the legislated
whistle-blowing protections.
Equal employment opportunity
Equal employment opportunity is the focus of this chapter because it is a basic
human right and is argued to be one of the most serious issues in HRM today
(Cascio 1998; CCH 2003; Lutz 2001). It is so basic in fact that it has not only
been covered by a plethora of laws in many countries but, albeit in a somewhat
limited way, has also been included by umbrella organizations such as the
United Nations as well as voluntary associations of businesses connected with
the CSR and sustainability ‘movements’ (Florini 2003).
There are many areas of employment activity that can be affected by
breaches of EEO and there is ample evidence that the number of cases in this
area is increasing, especially in the United States (Mello 2000). One of the most
important is that of employment recruitment and selection, as it is the least
open to scrutiny of any HR processes (Petersen, Saporta, and Seidel 2000) and
there is evidence that discrimination in these processes is commonplace, in
both Western and non-Western countries (Bennington 2001; Collinson and
Collinson 1996; Noon and Ogbonna 2001). Protecting EEO rights is both a
legal and an ethical issue (Martin and Woldring 2001). Most countries have
anti-discrimination laws in one form or another, but, along with educative
approaches and the so-called ‘business case for EEO’, expectations of signifi-
cant changes in outcomes have not been fulfilled (Dickens 1999).
There is even concern that there may be negative changes in the state or
public sector that has (with some exceptions) also been subject to EEO laws.