In the summary of access and implementation strategy, I have argued that a company has a social responsibility to provide service for human rights. To help implement responsibilities, I insist that the social contract theory provides an applicable ground for the duty based theory with specific procedures to allocate the wealth. Business organization themselves are originated from social contracts, such as corporate law etc. thus I find it practical to apply when confronted with social responsibilities argument.
The reasons that I agree with the Deontologist perspective with a Social Contract theory are as below; .
GSK is a pharmaceutical company that deals directly with human rights issues and I believe that a minimum set of responsibilities are generated whenever dealing with fundamental rights. However, to apply such concept in real world, it is vague to define human rights and how to protect. In addition, GSK is involved in a complicated situation with several entities such as the local government, NGOs, world organizations, and the genetic medicine providers. Without any social contracts, it is virtually impossible to coordinate and ultimately benefit the community. .
However, social responsibility and the actions such as granting drugs voluntarily, may conflict with the shareholders' interest, that is, to maximize the shareholders' value. Social contract theory can be useful when the basic concept of a mandatory duty runs into trouble when confronted with conflicting obligations. Donaldson invites us to accept the idea of social contracts with a minimal floor of responsibility for corporations that are required to respect a set of fundamental rights. Through setting up fundamental rights, it will help the corporate managers avoid of conflict issues arising from agency problems. Referring to the Nike case, it is for the shareholders' interest to take advantage of child labor in a third world, but against ethical responsibilities to give children a minimum level of education.