UNIVERSITY OF WEST LONDON

MBA

Assessment No: Individual Assignment 01

Module Code & Title: MS7SL820 – Business Ethics in Action

Ethical Aspect of Social Media

Name: Individual Assignment of Business Ethics

Name of the Student: Kaushalya Nishali Senevirathne

University ID: 21524085

Module Tutor- Mr. Ravi Opatha

Word Count – 2328

Table of Contents
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 The nature of the study ................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 The Ethical dilemmas / Key issues ............................................................................................... 1

2. Literature review ................................................................................................................................. 2

2.1 Data collection in social media ..................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Stakeholder analysis...................................................................................................................... 2

3 Normative ethics .................................................................................................................................. 3

3.1 Consequentialism .......................................................................................................................... 4

3.1.1 Utilitarianism ......................................................................................................................... 4

3.1.2 Ethical Egoism ....................................................................................................................... 4

3.2 Non – Consequentialism ............................................................................................................... 4

3.2.1 Deontology ............................................................................................................................. 5

3.2.2 Virtue Ethics .......................................................................................................................... 5

3.3 Triple Font (TFT) Theory ............................................................................................................. 6

3.3.1 Moral Object .......................................................................................................................... 6

3.3.2 Intension ................................................................................................................................. 6

3.3.3 Circumstances ........................................................................................................................ 7

4 Recommendations & conclusion ......................................................................................................... 7

Appendices.............................................................................................................................................. 9

References ............................................................................................................................................. 10

i
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Mendelow's Matrix................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2 - Normative ethics .................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3 - Facebook Scandal – 2018....................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4 - Google Scandal ...................................................................................................................... 9

ii
1. Introduction
1.1 The nature of the study
According to the data analysis there are 4.48 people are using social media in 2021 and approximately
this is an increase 13.13% year-on-year from 3.69 billion in 2020 (Insights, 2021). In 2015, there were
only 2.07 billion users and that’s an overall increase in users of 115.59% within six years (Barrett-
Maitland & Lynch, 2020). And by region, Asia is leading the leading the growth of the social media in
2019 -2020. As Keipo’s analysis, the country with the most significant social media growth in 2019-
2020 was India. Facebook is the leading social network at 2.9 billion with monthly active users,
followed by YouTube 2.3 billion, WhatsApp 2 billion, FB Messenger 1.3 billion, WeChat 1.2 billion
and Instagram 1.1 billion (KEMP, 2021) (Statista, 2021). Children and Parent's Media Use and Attitudes
report recognizing that 46% of 11year old, 51% of 12year old and 28% of 10year old currently have an
online media profile. Further, 54% of the underage (age under 18 years) clients use Snapchat, Facebook
and Twitter (ofcom, 2019). However, the average number of the social accounts has per person is 8,4
per person in 2020. And the 40% of the users in worldwide using social media for work purpose.

1.2 The Ethical dilemmas / Key issues

Social media is communication through websites and other online platforms that are used by large
groups of people to share information, develop social and professional contacts, and promote business.
The increased of the using social media is accompanied by privacy issues and ethical concerns and these
privacy issues can have far reaching professional, personal and security implications. Therefore, posting
and collecting the business information on social medias that misrepresents company products, services
or credentials may violate the codes (Turculeț, 2014). And the main ethical issue in the social media
platform is privacy. Second concern is about informed consent. Most of the social media companies use
users’ data for their business activities (researches) without acknowledging the users. Spamming,
improper anonymity and misuse of free expertise and contests are the next set of common issues faced
in social media platforms (Khan, 2015) (Hennell, et al., 2019).

1
2. Literature review
2.1 Data collection in social media
Web-based media gather the information for business purposes. However, individuals and other groups
like research organizations have a negative response to this information utilizing because of different
reasons. Traditional surveys are human associated. However, online media research directly with
distance and members are not actually associated. Thus, there are significant of malfunctioning
identified in social media researches. (Baier, 2018). The data collection without the consent of the users
even though the users accepted the agreement has a major discussion point in the last few years. For
instances, Facebook company faced a big data and the Facebook scandal due to data collection without
the consent of the users (Figure 3 - Facebook Scandal – 2018). As a result, Facebook company agreed
to pay $5 billon penalty to settle with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for "misleading
investors about the risks it faced from misuse of user data" (Fuller, 2019) (Commision, 2019). Same
data privacy issues occurred in Google and Amazon as well (Figure 4 - Google Scandal)(Lomas, 2020).

2.2 Stakeholder analysis

Stakeholder analysis can be performed by using Mendelow’s matrix. This matrix developed based on
the power and the interest and analyze through four grids.

Figure 1 - Mendelow's Matrix

Source - (Ginige, et al., 2018)

Social media’s top stakeholder prioritization should be focus upon; users for the social media (account
holders), employees of the social media companies, advertisers of the social media and government.

• Users – Uses can be classified as “Key players” with high interest and high power. With the
innovation and expand of the internet, most of the generations (Millennials, Generation Z,
Generation Alpha) are using these social media. Thus, if there any misbehavior, scandals and
ethical concerns, they voice out to the public and it will viral within few minutes. Hence, uses
have more interests and power than before because of the connectivity (Valentini, 2011).

2
 • Employees – In a traditional allocation, employees can be categorized under “Keep informed”
due to high interest and low power. However, with the information technology development
employees also can be identified as Key player. They are more focusing about the practices,
policies, rules and regulations, company’s support towards employees etc. If there any
obligation, they also voice out about the concern to get an attention from relevant parties
(Ginige, et al., 2018).
• Advertisers – The main income source of the social media is advertisers or business pages.
They are the next Key Players of social media companies. For instance, Facebook has a total
of 90 million business pages. And 80.4% of U.S social reference share accounted for Facebook
due to adverts (KEMP, 2021). Further, Facebook’s revenue rises by 48% due to higher-priced
ads (Rodriguez, 2021).
• Government – Government has a high power with low interest specifically about the industry.
But they work as governing body. Therefore, the government works for the public interest and
they will intervene if they and misbehaviors. Most popular scandals like Facebook, Google,
Amazon were sorted and define new regulations by the US government (Hennell, et al., 2019).

3 Normative ethics
Normative ethics are the norms that used for decision making. Simply, standards, or a ‘rule’, so moral
norms are standards or principles with which people are expected to comply. Normative theories can
be categories into Consequentialism and Non-consequentialism.

Motivation/
Principles Action Outcomes

Non-consequentialist Ethics
Consequentialist Ethics

Figure 2 - Normative ethics

Source - (Crane & Matten, 2010)

3
3.1 Consequentialism
Consequentialism theories are ethics can be analyzes based on the consequences of an action. Therefore,
generally good or right action would hold the best consequences overall in the situation.
Consequentialist theories are predictive because it is based on best consequences of an act. If an
outcome of an event is positive, then it would be morally right and vise-versa (Traer, 2013).

The main consequentialism can be classified into another two theories; Ethical Egoism and
Utilitarianism.

3.1.1 Utilitarianism
This is focus upon the principle of “greatest happiness”. Hence, working towards collective welfare and
it identifies as rater good for the greater number of people rather than maximizing individual welfare.

The privacy policies developed based on the Utilitarian theory and as a result most of the countries are
governing the social media to protect general interest. For instance, US has a robust anti-regulation
approach to Internet and social media privacy (led by Internet companies like Google) that emphasis
for a utilitarian or “business friendly” approach to data protection. And US follows self-regulatory
practices (industry norms, codes of conduct, and contracts) among online users, companies, and the US
Government (main stakeholders) (Parsons, 2019). If Facebook follows utilitarianism theories, then they
will make sure to check and get the consent from the users about the data collection.

3.1.2 Ethical Egoism

Ethical egoism is about individuals who are ethically active for their own advantage with the absence
of concentration on overall general public interest. (Shaver, 2019 Edition). Thus, individuals are more
narrow-minded and focus only on self-benefits.

Most of the business focus about the profit rather than the society. Therefore, organizations are behaving
for their own interest. The best example for this would be the Facebook scandal about the customer’s
sentimental analysis without acknowledging/consent the uses of the Facebook. Informed consent and
allow to take the data are the best practices and it adhere/align with privacy, autonomy, and data of
social media users (Salmons, 2017). Thus, informed consent is a top priority in a research. But,
Facebook collected the data for their own grater interest without informed and get the clear approval
from the uses. Hence, they solely focus only the profit of Facebook rather adhering to the grater accepted
ethical (Utilitarianism).

3.2 Non – Consequentialism

These are the ethical theories that focusses on the motivations, principles or ideas causes of an action
rather emphasizing the outcomes of the decision. According to Kamm, Non-consequentialism is a type
of normative ethical theory that denies that the rightness or wrongness of our conduct is determined

4
solely by the goodness or badness of the consequences of our acts or of the rules to which those acts
conform (Kamm, 2007) (LaFollette & Persson, 2013).

3.2.1 Deontology
Deontology is a non-consequentialism theory about individuals taking moral choices openly dependent
on a specific arrangement of rules, methods and standards disregarding the results of the activity. These
standards and standards are globally accepted, and people groups ought to follow these guidelines.
Further, Kant clarifies that individuals could take moral choices freely. (Oswald A. J. Mascarenhas,
2019).

According to Kant’s theory, deceit of the user categorized as unable to literally acceptable because it
hides the actual usage of the information. Hence, Facebook’s behavior vulnerable to the users’ privacy
and it challenges to the consent of the research data usage. Therefore, this was a bad movement took
place by Facebook and this is not morally accepted in the ethical behavior that because of not respecting
individual’s privacy. Thus, the European Union strictly follows the Kant’s approach that “rests upon a
conviction that privacy is an inalienable right – one that states must protect, even if at considerable
economic and other sorts of costs” (Parsons, 2019).

3.2.2 Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics vary from consequentialism and deontology in that it advantages the person, or
righteousness, of the person rather than standards of outcome or obligation. According to Aristotle,
morality will be depended on the characteristics that developed at all the time. And it is emphasized
that, with respect to the moral virtues, actions are “learn by doing” (Shaw & Barry, 2014). Utilitarian’s,
discount the significance of justice and fairness while deontologists little attention of happiness and
social utility (Crane & Matten, 2010).

A number of computer ethicists argue that the virtue ethics for computers and how virtue based
decisions aid users to make virtuous decision about the usages. Similarly, it will applicable for social
medias about how to use and collect data virtuously. Further, virtue ethics which relevant for
information privacy, self-development to online community, social networking. Siponen and Iivari,
argued that, virtue theory will consider in information science and it will guide for policy makers
(Siponen & Iivari, 2006). A virtue ethics information privacy act would guide not only the privacy
polies but also educating, inspiring and self-development of the users and data collectors. Hence, this
will support to self-awareness and enhanced understandings of their own values and rights (Crane &
Matten, 2010). For instance, Facebook should be acknowledging the privacy policies and guidelines
with the users before collecting data and make sure to take and proper consent as well.

5
3.3 Triple Font (TFT) Theory
TFT is developed with three dimensions that aid for morality. Those factor would be moral object,
intension of the agent and circumstances including consequences (Arjoon, 2007). TFT provides a
foundation to evaluate interconnectivity and interdependency of morale evaluation of human act. Some
of the theories only focus only one or two dimensions. For instance, legalism concentrate about first
element, deontological ethics focus on second element (intension) while utilitarianism emphasis about
the third element (circumstances). Therefore, TFT aid to capture all three together (Arjoon, 2007).

3.3.1 Moral Object

This is about the reality towards the action trends. Simply, the movement of the activity itself or the
goods towards which the will direct itself. And this shapes the morale like and provides the objects of
a morale situation. This objects categorized in to two; material object and formal object. Material objects
link with the external actions while formal objects are associate within the act. Specifically, rights and
responsibilities are fall under morale objects an (Mele, 1997)d there aren’t any conflicts between right
and right, right and duty, duty and duty (Arjoon, 2007).

Facebook’s data collection without a consent is a moral object. Facebook can ask below questions
before taking place any kind of actions (Hennell, et al., 2019).

• Does it violate any human rights or any just laws?

• Does it fulfil contractual duties?
• Is it in accordance with distributive justice?
• Does it contribute to community or promote other ethical values?
• Has the ethical issue or problem been properly defined (facts, conflicts of rights, duties, and
values)?
• Who are the stakeholders that may be affected?
• Is there a possibility for scandal?

With the consideration of the above questions, Facebook can determine the action is an ethical or
unethical, just or unjust. According to the action took place by Facebook was an unethical approach.

3.3.2 Intension
This is the motive that a person or company ultimately focus based on the moral object. Simply, the
reason for which we making a choice or a movement of the will towards the end. To evaluate the
intension, cooperation or evil is considered. According to Male, identified three ways that help to
cooperate; Participate, collaboration and omission (Mele, 1997) (Arjoon, 2007). To evaluate the
cooperation, there is three conditions; if the agent does not will the whole operation, if the agent’s part
in the operation is not intrinsically wrong, and if there is proportionate need for cooperation. The

6
relationship between moral object and the subjective intention would be right moral intention cannot
lead to a bad moral object.

According to the Facebook’s behavior, their intention was to make profits from the data by creating
algorithms and sell it to the other users. Thus morale intension was bad and it leads to a negative morale
objective as well.

3.3.3 Circumstances
The outcome of the morale action/morale object is the circumstances and consequences. These
circumstances can be analyzed while asking 5-why including who, what, where, why, when. There are
two type of circumstances; aggravating circumstances occurred due to human character, specifying
circumstances which change the nature of the act, or introduce a new element into the act (Arjoon,
2007).

With reference to the Facebook data scandal, moral intension leads to a bad object and bad object ended
up with $5 billion penalty with tarnished reputation.

4 Recommendations & conclusion

There are few recommendations can be emphasized based on the literature review.

• Educating the users of social and internet to be more vigilant about these data scandals and
encourage the users to maintain data privacy (Baier, 2018).
• Social media and internet activities should govern with proper rules and regulations about the
data usages, data extractions and data selling.
• Ethical guidelines should follow by the organizations and adopt an ethical framework to sort
the dilemmas in an appropriate manner (Townsend & Wallace, 2017).
• The government should actively guide these platforms to secure the privacy, govern the
behaviors, protect the users and consumers, enhance rules with policy procedures.
• The organizations should evaluate every decision making with the consideration of different
ethical theories about the ethicality to make a good decision.
• Users should enhance profile privacy settings with a strong password, hidden from the search
engines etc to make sure to protect the details.
• Empowering the users and other pressure groups to voice out any scandals regarding the
internet usage and social media. Further, encourage and protect the voice-out people by law.

Most of the leading technological companies experienced at least a scandal due to General Data
Protection Regulations. Such as Facebook, Google, Amazon, Twitter fined for billion dollars due to
unethical practices about the social media and internet usage. As government, community expected,
organizations should behave according to corporate ethics as a good citizen. Further, companies should

7
align their goals with the business ethics, societal needs and supporting the rights of their users. Hence,
the main expectation would be obeying to the ethical principles and guide the actions of internet services
and social media providers in mature information societies. As Kant explained, “Do unto others as you
have them do unto you”, if this by hearted the users and owners of the platforms should be able to
reduce the unethical behaviors, interactions and undesirable incidents

8
Appendices

Figure 3 - Facebook Scandal – 2018

Source - (Times, 2018)

Figure 4 - Google Scandal

Source - (Salinas, 2018)

9
References
Arjoon, S., 2007. Ethical Decision-Making: A Case for the Triple Font Theory. Journal of Business
Ethics, 71(4), pp. 395 - 410.

Baier, A., 2018. The Ethical Implications of Social Media: Issues and Recommendations For Clinical
Practice. 29(11), pp. 1 - 11.

Barrett-Maitland, N. & Lynch, J., 2020. Social Media, Ethics and the Privacy Paradox. Security and
Privacy From a Legal, Ethical, and Technical Perspective, pp. 01 -14.

Commision, F. T., 2019. FTC Imposes $5 Billion Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on
Facebook. [Online]
Available at: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/07/ftc-imposes-5-billion-penalty-
sweeping-new-privacy-restrictions
[Accessed 24 July 2019].

Crane, A. & Matten, D., 2010. Business Ethics : Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in
the Age of Globalization. s.l.:Oxford University Press.

Fuller, M., 2019. Big data and the Facebook scandal : Issues and responses. Theology, 122(1), pp. 14 -
21.

Ginige, K., Amaratunga, D. & Haigh, R. P., 2018. Mapping stakeholders associated with societal
challenges: A Methodological Framework. Procedia Engineering, Volume 212, pp. 1195 - 1202.

Hennell, K., Limmer, M. & Piacentini, M., 2019. Ethical Dilemmas Using Social Media in Qualitative
Social Research: A Case Study of Online Participant Observation. Sociological Research Online, 25(3),
pp. 01 - 17.

Insights, D. –. G. D., 2021. GLOBAL SOCIAL MEDIA STATS. [Online]

Available at: https://datareportal.com/social-media-users
[Accessed 2021].

Kamm, F. M., 2007. Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm. s.l.:Oxford
Scholarship.

KEMP, S., 2021. DIGITAL 2021: GLOBAL OVERVIEW REPORT, s.l.: DataReportal – Global Digital
Insights.

Khan, A., 2015. Ethical Issues in Social Networking. pp. 01 - 10.

LaFollette, H. & Persson, I., 2013. Nonconsequentialism. In: The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory.
s.l.:s.n., pp. 261 - 286.

10
Lomas, N., 2020. France fines Google $120M and Amazon $42M for dropping tracking cookies without
consent. [Online]
Available at: https://techcrunch.com/2020/12/10/france-fines-google-120m-and-amazon-42m-for-
dropping-tracking-cookies-without-consent/
[Accessed 10 December 2020].

Martinez, J. M., 1998. Law versus Ethics. Administration & Society, Issue 29, p. 693.

Mele, D., 1997. Etica en la Dirreccion de Empresas.

ofcom, 2019. Communications Market Report 2019, s.l.: ofcom.

Oswald A. J. Mascarenhas, S. J., 2019. Corporate Ethics for Turbulent Markets. Ethics of Corporate
Moral Reasoning, Moral Judgment, and Moral Justification, pp. 217-249.

Parsons, T. D., 2019. Ethical Challenges in Digital Psychology and Cyberpsychology. s.l.:Cambridge
University Press.

Poon, J. a. H. M., 2010. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment. Use of moral theory to
analyse the ethical codes of built environment professional organisations: A case study of the Royal
Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Volume V 02 N0 03, p. 261.

Rodriguez, S., 2021. Facebook revenue rises 48%, driven by higher-priced ads, s.l.: CNBC.

Salinas, S., 2018. A Google bug exposed the information of up to 500,000 users, s.l.: CNBC.

Salmons, J., 2014. New Social Media,New Social Science...and New Ethical Issues!, s.l.: SAGE
Publishing.

Salmons, J., 2017. Getting to Yes: Informed Consent in Qualitative Social Media Research. The Ethics
of Online Research (Advances in Research Ethics and Integrity, Volume Vol 02, pp. 109-134.

Shaver, R., 2019 Edition. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Spring 2019 ed. s.l.:Metaphysics
Research Lab, Stanford University.

Shaw, W. H. & Barry, V., 2014. Moral Issues in Business. 3rd Asia Pacific Edition ed. s.l.:Cenage
Lerning.

Siponen, M. & Iivari, J., 2006. Six Design Theories for IS Security Policies and Guidelines. Journal of
the Association for Information Systems, 7(7), pp. 445 - 472.

Statista, 2021. Most popular social networks worldwide as of October 2021, ranked by number of active
users. [Online]
Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-

11
users/
[Accessed 2021].

Times, T. N. Y., 2018. Cambridge Analytica and Facebook: The Scandal and the Fallout So Far, UK:
The New York Times.

Townsend, D. L. & Wallace, P. C., 2017. Social Media Research: A Guide to Ethics. pp. 01 - 16.

Traer, R., 2013. Moral philosophy: an adventure in reasoning. 2nd ed. Colorado: Westview Press.

Turculeț, M., 2014. Ethical Issues Concerning Online Social Networks. Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Volume 149, p. 967 – 972.

Valentini, C., 2011. Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and
Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media. International Journal of Strategic Communication,
Volume 5, pp. 221 - 239.

12