262 PROGRESSING HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
In the ‘real world’ is a ‘care ethic’ (Ford and Harding 2003) therefore
tenable? The evidence would suggest that the ethical dimension is pursued
because it makes good business sense. The argument goes that it is not suf-
ficient for managers to be cognizant of the ramifications of their actions and
those of their organizations for the society at large; instead they must pursue
an ethical dimension because it serves the strategic and financial interests of
their organizations in addition to enhancing the managers’ own careers. In
this regard, Watson (2003: 172) argues that:
For an organization to survive into the long-term, its managers cannot afford to lose
the support of the state, public opinion, communication media, and, especially, clients
and customers. If it offends what journalists take to be important moral values, it is
likely to suffer damaging publicity. If it offends social moralities embedded in state
legislation, it is likely to be punished and possibly put out of business by the law. If
it ethically offends employees and potential employees, it may find itself without the
labour resources and commitment it requires to stay in operation. And if customers
see the organization in a morally offensive way, they may take their trade elsewhere.
The argument above seeks to highlight the commercial sense of being ethical,
which would challenge the significance of the notion of ‘caring’ as proposed
by Ford and Harding (2003). In his paper, Watson (2003) analyses the views
of a manager who is steadfast in offering ‘business grounds’ as a rationale
for making the morally correct decisions and arguing against those he or she
perceives to be morally untenable. This perspective effectively combines utili-
tarian (actions compatible with commercial interests), deontological (relating
to fairness), and emotivist principles of ethics. In the literature, the utilitarian
perspective features prominently, thus underpinning the centrality of business
interests in the pursuit of the ethical dimension. Hence, an ethical perspective
is pursued because it is commercially expedient, not because of other reasons
which are likely to be morally ambiguous and which might run against or even
contravene personal, cultural, and possibly religious preferences. The message
seems to be: ‘Let’s keep it simple, if it’s good for business, let’s do it’.
Relating this to our theme of appropriation, it becomes evident that the
pragmatism inherent in the ‘business interests’ argument is consistent with
the rational approach to the justification of interest in HR as ‘strategic assets’
and the subsequent preoccupation with codification of knowledge. As we
argue above, people are valued in the organization because they are perceived
as strategic assets, and this rationale in turn serves to justify investments
in training and development, empowerment, and all those other initiatives
currently associated with enlightened or progressive management. It is often
argued that the functionality and desirability of these initiatives can be verified
through empirical observation and quantitative analysis. Typically, this means
that to the extent that it can be demonstrated that HR add value, they earn
the right to be treated as valuable. This argument was pivotal in the earlier