ABSTRACT
The study examined managerial ethics as correlates of corporate social responsibility in the administration of universities in South South, Nigeria. The research design of the study was a correlational design. Six research questions and six hypotheses guided the study. A sample of 591 administrators was randomly selected using multi-stage sampling techniques precisely stratified proportionate, purposive and simple random sampling techniques. Two sets of questionnaires were developed by the researcher for data collection for the study. The first questionnaire titled: University Administration Managerial Ethics Questionnaire (UAMEQ) with 48 items, was designed to collect information on Managerial Ethics of university administrators, while the second questionnaire titled: Corporate Social Responsibility Questionnaire (CSRQ) which contained 15 items, was designed to collect information on Corporate Social Responsibility. The data generated through the pilot testing of the instrument were analyzed using Cronbach Alpha reliability test to determine the internal consistency of the questionnaire items. Reliability coefficients of .79 and .91 were obtained for the approaches of managerial ethics and corporate social responsibility in the administration of universities respectively which indicated that the instruments were highly valid and reliable for the study. Data were analyzed using Pearson Product Moment Correlation to answer research questions and to test the hypotheses at .05 level of significance. Findings revealed that utilitarian approach to a significant negative moderate extent relates to corporate social responsibilities, individualism approach to a significant negative low extent relates to corporate social responsibilities, moral rights approach, to a significant positive low extent relates to corporate social responsibilities, justice approach, to a significant positive moderate extent relates to corporate social responsibilities, virtue approach, to a significant positive moderate extent relates to corporate social responsibilities and common good approach, to a positive low extent relates to corporate social responsibilities in the administration of universities in South South, Nigeria. Some of the recommendations made include; university administrators should employ appropriate managerial ethics while carrying out corporate social responsibilities to host communities, university administrators should perform their corporate social responsibilities adequately and regularly to their host communities without waiting for them to agitate for their right and universities should form a synergy with their host communities to ensure a peaceful co-existence and sustainable development.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title
Page i
Certification ii
Declaration
iii
Dedication iv
Acknowledgements
v
Table
of Contents vi
List
of Tables x
List
of Figures xi
Abstract xii
CHAPTER
1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1
Background to the Study 1
1.2
Statement of the Problem 15
1.3
Purpose of the Study 16
1.4
Research Questions 17
1.5
Hypotheses 18
1.6
Significance of the Study 18
1.7
Scope of the Study 20
CHAPTER
2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 20
2.1 Conceptual Framework 20
2.1.1 Concept of Managerial Ethics 21
2.1.1.1.
Importance of Managerial Ethics 25
2.1.1.2.
Concept of Utilitarian Approach 30
2.1.1.3.
Concept of Individualism Approach 35
2.1.1.4.
Concept of Moral Rights Approach 37
2.1.1.5.
Concept of Justice Approach 38
2.1.1.6.
Concept of Virtue Approach 41
2.1.1.7.
Concept of Common Good Approach 44
2.1.2. Concept of Corporate Social Responsibilities 46
2.1.2.1.
Economic Responsibility 57
2.1.2.2.
Philanthropy Responsibility 61
2.1.2.3.
Ethical Responsibility 63
2.1.2.4.
Legal Responsibility 65
2.1.2.5.
Factors influencing corporate social responsibility 67
2.1.3. Administration of Universities 67
2.2 Theoretical Framework 69
2.2.1
The
Stakeholder Theory 69
2.2.2 The Systems Theory 71
2.2.3. Administrative Management Theory 72
2.3
Empirical Studies 74
2.4
Summary of Literature Review 79
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 82
3.1
Design of the Study 82
3.2
Area of the Study 82
3.3
Population of the Study 83
3.4
Sample and Sampling Techniques 84
3.5
Instrument for Data Collection 85
3.6
Validation of the Instrument 85
3.7
Reliability of the Instrument 86
3.8
Method of Data Collection 86
3.9
Method of Data Analysis 87
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION 96
4.1 Results Presentation 96
4.2 Findings of the Study 107
4.3 Discussion of the Findings 107
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY,
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 110
5.1 Summary 110
5.2 Conclusion 110
5.3 Educational Implications of the Study 112
5.4 Recommendations 114
5.5 Limitations of the Study 115
5.6 Suggestion for further Study 116
REFERENCES 117
APPENDIX I: Questionnaire
127
APPENDIX II:
Population Distribution of Respondents 133
APPENDIX III: Sample
Distribution of Respondents 134
APPENDIX
IV:
Map of South-South, Nigeria 135
APPENDIX V:
Test of Reliability 136
APPENDIX VI:
Correlation Matrix of Relationship between Managerial
Ethics
and Corporate Social Responsibility 142
APPENDIX VII: Validation
of Instrument 145
LIST
OF TABLES
Table
4.1:
Correlation Matrix of Relationship between Utilitarian 96
Approach and Corporate Social
Responsibilities
Table
4.2: Correlation Matrix of Relationship between Individualism 98
Approach and Corporate Social Responsibilities
Table
4.3: Correlation Matrix of Relationship between Moral
Rights 99
Approach and Corporate Social
Responsibilities
Table
4.4: Correlation Matrix of Relationship between Justice 100
Approach and Corporate Social
Responsibilities
Table
4.5: Correlation Matrix of Relationship between Virtue 102
Approach and Corporate
Social Responsibilities
Table
4.6: Correlation Matrix of Relationship between Common Good
103
Approach and Corporate
Social Responsibilities
LIST
OF FIGURES
Fig 1: Components of Managerial Ethics 29
Fig 2: Components of Corporate Social Responsibility 55
Fig 3: Construction of Roads 57
Fig 4: Adequate Water Supply 58
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
Universities
as the apex of tertiary education and centre of reasoning did not just begin in
Nigeria like the idiomatic bolts from the sky; rather it came as a baby of necessity
whose arrival was long overdue to fill a wide vacuum and to achieve set goals
and objectives (Uduk, 2016). No country is expected to successfully progress
and reap from the 21st century market space without a viable educated
workforce from university education. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2013) defined
university as an institution of higher learning that awards degree at
undergraduate and postgraduate levels. It involves increasing and extending
educational programmes for the improvement of high level manpower within the
framework of the necessity of the nation. That is why Okey and Ndum (2013)
opined that universities are custodians of knowledge and provides platforms for
transdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and shared thinking that is vital in
sustaining socio-economic goals, environmental growth and all round development
of any nation.
In
Nigeria, universities are established by law and owned by the federal government,
state government, organizations and private individuals. Obadara and Olaniyan
(2014) emphasized that the university system as a vibrant regenerator of ideas,
engage in knowledge creation, teaching, training and examining students in
various scientific, scholarly and professional fields. The expansion or advancement
of knowledge which is essential in improving the quality of life of all
citizens and social progress in general is best cultivated in a peaceful atmosphere.
However, for
universities to ensure a peaceful atmosphere, function professionally and
smoothly geared towards achieving its goals and objectives they require
effective administration. Administration is the component part of management
and the driving force that propels all organizational process. Okorji and Unachukwu
(2014) defined administration as a social process geared towards planning,
identifying, controlling and directing formal and informal organized human,
financial and material resources within an integrated system in order to accomplish
predetermined goals. Thus, administration involves getting things done which is
geared towards achieving a definite purpose. Aguba (2009) described administration
as one of the most onerous responsibilities undertaken by man. Many individuals
often think that they can do the job but regrettably, a good number of such people
end up as failures due to poor administration. Effective administration is the
desire and responsibility of administrators in any university. Effective
administration of universities in the words of Ibara (2010) involves
establishing and maintaining a suitable environment where research, teaching
and learning can take place, facilitating the efficiency of university
operations by ensuring social interrelationships within and outside the
institution as well as the implementation of educational policy for realizing educational
goals and objectives.
Apparently, in university
administration, there is an administrator to coordinate activities and take
decisions. That is why Modebelu (2016) opined that an administrator is the man
at the helm of affairs in any institution. In view of this, Herbert (2013)
defined an administrator as one who implements the plan, policies and
programmes as soon as they have been formulated. Similarly, National Open
University of Nigeria (2015) asserted that an administrator plans, organizes,
staffs, directs, reports, budgets and coordinates activities in an organization
in a way that things must work smoothly, quickly, efficiently and effectively. University administrators play significant roles in universities by
attaining the aims and objectives of education, research development and public
service. Erero in Ogbogu (2013) stated that university administration revolves
around the vice chancellor who doubles as both the academic and administrative
head of the institution. More so, the vice chancellor is accompanied by the
deputy vice chancellor academics, deputy vice chancellor administration and a
number of academic and administrative staff. However, from an organizational
and systemic perspective, Kuo (2009) opined that academic and administrative
staff of universities can be seen as two cultural organizations that
communicate and interact regularly with each other, through which relationships
are created and recreated. In support of the above, Nwankwo (2014) posited that academic staff
are individuals who are engaged in teaching and research activities including
professional librarians in the university. Academic staff are required to
diffuse knowledge through teaching, research and advanced study or other
professional activities, while administrative staff are individuals who are
engaged in non-teaching activities. University administrators include: Vice Chancellors
of universities, Deputy Vice Chancellors (academics), Deputy Vice Chancellors (administration),
Registrars, Deputy Registrars, Bursars, Librarians, Deans, Directors, Heads of
Department, Professors, Associate Professors and Senior Lecturers who are the
managers of the human, material and financial resources in universities.
University administration in the words of Keagon (2013) should be
in the hands of educationally qualified administrators, who are competent,
committed, experienced and have some basic courses in administration. In
addition, Oyebanji (2014) suggested that only visionary administrators who are
found worthy in character and in learning should be elected or appointed to
various positions in the universities; because an administrator can make or mar
university operations. Mishra (2014) opined that it is very difficult to run a
university without administrators with ethical attributes; this is because
administrators make the rules and regulations and apply these rules in the
institution. Sometimes, it is thought that the roles of these administrators
are not important in universities and their presence could be neglected; but
without the presence of administrators who act ethically, universities may
never work in a sound way. Mishra (2014) asserted that an administrator should have the ability to
understand effectively and professionally, the general concepts of
administration; develop administrative procedures; plan and control budget. More so, Mahajan (2011) stressed that the success or failure of
any university depends to a very large extent on the quality of the
administrator’s leadership, resourcefulness, creativity and zeal to work
harmoniously and judiciously with the host community. University system ought
to add relevance on their host community in a various ways depending on the
efforts made to meet the ever widening ranges of moral, intellectual and
physical needs.
Derivatively, Izedonmi
(2012) argued that every university has a responsibility to the immediate and
larger community where it operates. This involves a responsibility to create
wealth, to ensure social justice, clean environment and fair treatment of their
stakeholders towards improving the welfare of the people in the society. In
line with this, Ijaiya (2014) stated that it becomes a compelling but not
legally enforceable duty on universities to be socially responsible with its
immediate environment so as to have a peaceful co-existence with them. This is
aptly reflected to encourage universities to consider the essential needs of
the communities by providing social infrastructures such as; health centres,
provision of water supply, concessional admission, employment, scholarship
among others in their area of operation as part of their corporate social
responsibilities and a way of impacting the community positively. The neglect
of any component of these needs might have disastrous effects on both the
community and institution at large. However, for
universities to fulfil their educational, research, extension, community
services and informational functions in the 21st century, they ought
to be able to add value to their host community in order to have a peaceful and
smooth running of the institution. Ebose (2014)
further buttressed that the university system ought to bear some levels of
responsibilities to the community that sustains their existence and operations.
One of such ways of achieving this might be meeting the needs of their host
community through corporate social responsibility.
Corporate social
responsibility (CSR) in the words of Ijaiya (2014) is described as economic
responsibilities, discretionary responsibilities, ethical responsibilities and legal
responsibilities that communities have for universities within a specific
period of time. It means that universities have some measure of moral, ethical,
philanthropic and discretionary responsibilities in addition to their primary
legal responsibilities. Subsequently, Odetayo, Adeyemi and Sajuyigbe (2014)
defined corporate social responsibility as those duties performed by
universities to their host communities in which they operate, such as adequate
security, good roads, provision of water facility, health facility and safety.
More so, Adeyanju (2012)
asserted that corporate social responsibility is a situation where universities
go out of their ways to initiate actions that will impact positively on their
host communities, environment and people generally. From the above definitions,
corporate social responsibility refers the obligation of an organization to
respond positively to emerging societal needs, priorities and expectations.
These needs, priorities and expectations may be in the areas of enlightenment,
health, honour and wealth creation among others. Corporate social
responsibility however seems to be a key factor in university administration
and overall institutional success. Carrol in Ahaotu (2014) asserted that
corporate social responsibilities have four components. They are; economic
responsibility, ethical responsibility, philanthropic responsibility and legal
responsibility. In support of the above, Scilly
(2018) further explained the four components thus:
Economic responsibility is an organization's
first responsibility. It includes: provision of infrastructural facilities,
employment opportunities and other social support for the wellness of locality,
society and mankind through raising, strengthening and transforming
communities. On the other hand, philanthropic responsibilities are
responsibilities that are charitable in nature. The aim of the philanthropic
responsibility is to improve the standard of living by reducing poverty. This
can be achieved by donating services to communities, engaging in non-governmental
projects to aid the host community and donating money to charitable causes.
Ethical responsibilities are responsibilities that organizations put on
themselves because they believe it's the moral thing to do and not because they
are compelled to do so. Ethical responsibilities could include being
environmentally friendly to host communities and paying fair wages. Finally,
legal responsibilities are those responsibilities that are backed up by the law
thus, ensuring that organizations obey all laws. Legal responsibilities can
range from securities regulations to labour law, environmental law and even
criminal law.
Corporate social
responsibility is considered to be a vital aspect of organizational success
through efficient resource management, environmental protection, employment,
and friendly atmosphere to impact in the society in order to promote growth,
development, progress and ensure effective administration of universities. In
so doing it goes a long way in preserving environmental and cultural resources
for future generations; respecting diversity and promoting reduction of social
problems. Also, Ijaiya (2014) stated that the need for corporate social
responsibility in the administration of universities in Nigeria remains a
pertinent issue more than ever before. In fact, it remains an essential
instrument for the growth, development and transformation of the Nigerian
cities, communities, slums and the provision of basic amenities, jobs and
infrastructural facilities.
Conversely, South South region of Nigeria has a long history of
precarious environmental degradation, pollution, poor infrastructural
development and militancy. This region is a hot bed of agitation for
universities to provide corporate social responsibilities to host communities
where they operate. These agitations have gone beyond oil companies and
enormously affect all organizations operating in the region including universities.
The crux of the agitations revolve
around social injustice and poor development of their communities by federal universities
in their domain, which created room for hostility and violent activities being
embarked on by these communities against the institution. To this end, these communities are demanding that they be
treated with justice and fairness, in terms of power supply, employment opportunities, scholarships, concessional admission, good roads, well equipped hospitals, proper waste disposal, security, free
adult education programmes among others. In this regards, these host
communities have become very violent, hostile, brutal and not accommodating.
They even become unfriendly to strangers, staff and students who reside among
members of such communities. These indicate
that universities in South South might have failed to meet the essential needs
of their host communities. Painfully, it is worthy of note that if these problems are not tackled early by universities management, it
might lead to several attacks on the institutions by
thugs or indigenes of the communities whose lands were occupied by the
universities and unleashing of terrors in form of hostility, robbery, rape,
kidnapping, riot, mob-lynching, unrest, cultism, vandalization of university
properties and disruption of educational activities in the institutions by
these angry community members.
Dahan and Senols (2012)
posited that for any institution, whether public or private, to be successful
in achieving corporate social responsibility it must be internalized and adequately
supported by the university management. In line with the
above, Ifenkwe (2016) warned that university administrators should
understand that evasion of their corporate social responsibilities will have
grave consequences including; tendency to reduce investments in research, increase
in security force action, crisis in the institution, disruption of academic
activities and violence. The crises of violence attempted by the host community
to enforce compensation have caused devastating effects. A typical example of
this is the Aluu four in 2012, who were undergraduate students of University of
Port Harcourt and were gruesomely murdered by the community members where the
university is situated. According to Eme, Yemi and Otamiri (2016), the
mob-lynching news became an international one that appeared in Cable Network
News (CNN) and other media houses in Nigeria thus slightly affecting the
university reputation because of its inability to provide security and ensure a
good community relationship. This unfortunate incident affected the
administration of the institution, to the extent that the university was shut
down for several months. This explained why Asogwa and Onuh (2014) stated that corporate
social responsibility is a proactive means to crisis resolutions. It has not
only become more meaningful, but it also provides a variety of opportunities
for universities to strive to attain institutional goals. Due to the manner in
which the reputation of these universities were projected, it is critical that
the units responsible for this important assignment be properly equipped to
enable them live up to the highest professional expectations.
Subsequently, Ezeugbor (2014)
affirmed that for corporate social responsibilities to be effective, university
administrators must possess some ethical attributes and maintain a good moral
conduct in administration. The growing and worrisome trend of unethical
practices of administrators in universities in South South, Nigeria in this 21st
century is alarming. These unethical practices have led to financial
mis-management, corruption, bribery, nepotism, and favouritism to mention but a
few. That is why Asogwa and Onuh (2014) further
emphasized that corporate social
responsibility is a veritable instrument for continued peace, progress,
growth, development and cooperation between universities and their host
communities. Oyebanji (2014) argued that most administrative problems
experienced in Nigerian universities today particularly in South South, Nigeria
might be due to the fact that many university administrators are new in the
field and therefore may not have wider knowledge of the technicalities involved
in corporate social responsibilities in universities. It is little wonder
therefore, why Eya (2016) stated that university administrators should act in a
legal and ethical manner. More so, Okoye (2016) asserted that the necessary
ingredient of administration is managerial ethics and upon this, the bedrock of
administration is hinged. This was further buttressed by Oyebanji (2014) who opined
that there are myriads of problems confronting the administration of
universities most especially in South South, Nigeria. Prominent among these
problems is the issue of poor managerial ethics. Poor managerial ethics seem to
be the bane of Nigerian universities and its absence invariably, might hinder
optimal performance of university administrators. In order to curb some
excesses extending to these institutions by these angry community members,
efforts ought to be made to imbibe right managerial ethics by university
administrators.
Managerial ethics point the way to a particular course of action
defining acceptable behaviours and choices. To this end, Markkula (2014)
described managerial ethics as set of moral standards that
guides the conduct or behaviour of administrators operating within a workplace.
Managerial ethics involves the internal values, norms, standards
and corporate culture of administrators in any organization. In view of this, Ali
(2015) defined managerial ethics as moral codes that govern behaviour of administrators
regarding what is right and acceptable in an organization. Ali (2015) further
buttressed that there are no laws or rules that are directed specifically at
administrators. Instead, an ethics code is designed by universities to guide
administrators. This includes; norms, shared values, guidelines, principles and
policies about basic conduct as well as highlighting the duties an
administrator has towards its stakeholders. Stakeholders in
universities are persons or group of persons within or outside the institution
that has a stake in the effective performance of the institution. Welhrich, Cannice and Koontz (2011) aptly stated that managerial ethics
is concerned with truth, justice and has a variety of aspects, such as the
expectations of society, public relations, social responsibility and corporate
behaviour.
Similarly, Izedonmi (2012) reiterated
that managerial ethics in workplace help to sensitize corporate leadership as
to how they should act. It also helps to ensure that when administrators are
facing challenges, crisis and confusion, they should retain and maintain a
strong moral standard, irrespective of the situations and circumstances they
may find themselves. In support of the above, Agha (2010) posited
that administrators today require managerial
ethics to improve the standard of the institution, morality, growth, creativity
and contribute to the well being of the society. Commenting further, Muller (2014) opined that managerial ethics improve the quality and
consistency of administrators, ensure that standards and ethically acceptable
practices are observed, safeguard the reputation of administrators and
organization, set out ideas and responsibilities of the organization; provide
guidance on acceptable conduct, promote a strong public image by enhancing
corporate images and shows that an organization is responsible. However, Mehalu (2011) outlined some components of managerial
ethics that are relevant for guiding ethical practices. They are: utilitarian
approach, individualism approach, moral rights approach, justice approach,
virtue approach and common good approach.
Utilitarian approach in the words of Mehalu (2011) is an ethical
concept that moral behaviour will lead to the greatest good for the greatest
number of individuals in the society. This approach views decision making as
choosing from various alternatives for optimal satisfaction for the highest
number of people in a society. Markkula (2014) stated
that in the utilitarian approach, an action is morally right if the outcome
leads to happiness that is absence of pain, if it ends in unhappiness which is
pain. However, Capsim (2012) reinstated that utilitarian approach views an action
in terms of its results or outcomes, which is the net benefits and costs to all
stakeholders on an individual level. This approach strives to attain the
betterment for the greatest number of people by reducing harm or suffering to a
large extent. From the above definitions, utilitarian approach is a component
of managerial ethics in which the happiness of majority of persons are
considered the greatest good. It differs from individualism approach in that it
holds that every stakeholder’s interest should be considered equally when making
the decision.
The individualism approach refers to personal standard. It states
that actions are morals and ethical when they strive to achieve the
individual’s long-term interest. To
this end, Meeler (2014) affirmed that individualism approach is the
moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that lay emphasis
on the moral worth of the individual. Ezeugbor (2014) opined that in
individualism approach, administrators must possess the ability to achieve good
human relations in order to be fair, impartial, courageous, dedicated, tactful,
knowledgeable, flexible and easily adaptable to modern changes which will
effect development in university administration. Just like the moral rights
approach, individualism approach has also been used as a term denoting the quality of being an
individual.
Similarly, another component of managerial ethics is the moral
rights approach. Moral rights approach refers to social standards. Capsim
(2012) observed that the moral right approach is characterized with individual
character and disposition which deepens humanity and engender good
relationships with others. Sipper (2016) opined that moral right approach
involves respecting the fundamental rights of people, eliminating practices
that will be harmful, developing high moral and ethical standards. The
qualities of this approach are; civility, diligence, self-reliance, loyalty,
fairness, courage, tolerance, conscientiousness, generosity, temperance,
self-control, prudence, among others. This approach may cause administrators to
ask whether a given action is reflective of the kind of person they are or want
to be. Moral rights approach is different completely from the justice approach
for it is concerned with protecting and respecting people’s freedom, liberties
and privileges including the right of privacy, freedom of speech and due
process.
Justice approach on the other hand refers to legal standard. Thus,
Mehalu (2011) posited that justice
approach is an ethical concept that moral decisions must be based on standards
of equity, fairness and impartiality. In line with the above, Velasquez, Andre, Shanks
and Meyer (2014) defined justice approach as the level to which educational institutions
enhances the sharing of burdens and benefits among stakeholders justly and fairly.
It means giving people what they truly deserve. When people are unequally
treated and unfairly discriminated against on the grounds of irrelevant and
arbitrary considerations, they perceive that their human rights or dignity have
been infringed upon. More so, Rawls (2010) viewed
justice approach as the extent to which individuals are reasonably recompensed
for their damages by those who have caused them. When some members of the
society feel that they are subjected to unjust treatment, the foundations have
been laid for social unrest, disturbances and strife. Hence, a fair
compensation is equal to the damages inflicted on an individual. Rawls (2010)
further opined that the uniqueness of any university depends on the level to
which staff, students, parents and members of the host community feel that they
are being treated justly. The justice approach is slightly different from the
virtue approach in that it deals with legal
standard.
In the same vein, the virtue approach is a guiding principle based
on the type of individuals administrators should be. This form of managerial
ethics has been practised by famous people throughout history and is seen as a
positive outlook for many. Sipper (2016) observed that the main aim of the virtue
approach is the attention to being a moral person. The criteria for such
conducts are of course subjective, while promoting an objective view towards
character development. However, most administrators who practice virtue
approach generally agree that there seem to be some common criteria on which
administrators can be accessed. These criteria are: honesty, integrity,
discernment, compassion, kindness, patience, skilfulness and wisdom. The virtue
approach is different from the common good approach because it puts in place
the physical, mental, spiritual, emotional and intellectual properties of
administrators.
In addition, the common good approach of managerial ethics deals
with the welfare of the host community where the university is situated, rather
than on the welfare of just the institution. Jordan (2017) opined that the
common good approach views an organization as a sub-unit of the community.
Capsim (2012) reiterated that the common good approach is very useful when
issues involve the overall environment, and happiness is made possible by
sustained welfare of community life. And as such, shares similar
characteristics upon which the welfare of the community depends on. More so,
Uys and Harty (2014) suggested that the common good approach is considered the
option that best serves the community as a whole and not just some members. The
interactions between universities and host community should be on the basis of
ethical reasoning. However, respect for all individuals especially the
vulnerable in the community, are required for such reasoning. Dherse (2017)
argued that the common good approach is the compass needed in order to progress
from one decision to the next without failing. Thus, administrators who do not
show care to their host community will cause damage as well as disaster to the
organization.
Nevertheless, Nwinyokpugi and Nwibere (2014) stated that
administrators can simultaneously use one or more approaches of managerial
ethics in the administration of universities. However, in order to ensure
effective administration of universities in South South, Nigeria, university
administrators may need to reaffirm their past, current and future impact on
their host communities in a proactive manner than being re-active to enthrone
ethical practices in administrators’ interactions. Invariably, there are
managerial ethics used by administrators in the administration of universities.
Undoubtedly, corporate social responsibility which seems to be one of the
indicators of effective administration seems to be poor in universities in
South South, Nigeria. That brings about several agitations from host
communities. One wonders if managerial ethics is a correlate of corporate social
responsibility in the administration of universities. However, correlates in
the words of Hornby (2013) means having a mutual relationship or close
connection with something in which one thing affects or depends on another. It
is further defined as those things that go together or relate to each other in
some ways. In this study, correlates refer to those managerial ethics that have
mutual relationship or relates to corporate social responsibility in the
administration of universities in South-South, Nigeria.
Subsequently,
previous empirical studies were carried out by some researchers: Nwinyokpugi
and Nwibere (2014) carried out a study on Managerial Ethics and Organizational
Effectiveness in Firms in Nigeria. Bisschoff and Lotriet (2012) investigated
Factor Identification of Managerial Ethics in North-West University, South
Africa. Ugboaja and Ebere (2016)
examined the Evaluation of Corporate
Social Responsibility of Public Tertiary Institutions in the Development of
Host Communities in Abia State. Asogwa
and Onuh (2014) examined Corporate Social Responsibility in Higher Institutions
in Kogi State. Also, Asemah, Okpanachi and Olumuji (2013) investigated
Universities and Corporate Social Responsibility Performance in Plateau State. Fontaine
(2013) investigated Corporate Social
Responsibility and Sustainability in Lisle, USA. Igbinedion and
Ovbiagele (2012) carried out a study on Corporate Social Responsibilities of
Tertiary Institutions in Delta South Senatorial District. However, from the
review of previous empirical studies, there is no evidence that Managerial Ethics
as correlates of Corporate Social Responsibility in the Administration of Universities in South South, Nigeria have been
studied and this creates a gap for the present study. That is why this present study intends to fill the gap in knowledge of
investigating Managerial Ethics as correlates of Corporate Social Responsibility in the Administration of Universities
in South South, Nigeria.
1.2 STATEMENT
OF THE PROBLEM
Effective administration is the backbone of any university as well
as the desire and responsibility of every administrator. For administration to
be effective, administrators require managerial ethics. Research has shown that
administrators that adopt managerial ethics in their organizations perform
better and safeguard both the reputation of the organization and the administrators.
On the contrary, absence of managerial ethics has proven to lead to problems of
mismanagement, corruption, bribery, pilferage, wastage and inefficient
administration. Thus, managerial ethics is vital in every university because it
helps to maintain a clear moral course and direction in turbulent times. Yet, the problem with most federal universities in South South, Nigeria
is that there are crisis hindering the provision of corporate social responsibility
which might be as a result of poor managerial ethics.
Apparently, corporate
social responsibility seems to be poor in federal universities in South South,
Nigeria. This brought about several agitations from host communities. South-South
region is a hot bed of agitation for corporate organizations to meet their corporate
social responsibilities to the communities where they operate. To this end, there seems to be a disconnection between the universities
and their host communities with regards to encroachment of land, unsettled land compensation, poor waste
disposal, insecurity, chemical hazard from laboratories and electrical hazard amongst others. The host communities also seem
to be agitating that universities in their domain grant them some concessions
in admission, employment opportunities, provision of social amenities and the
award of contracts as part of the corporate social responsibilities to them. It
is worth mentioning that if these problems are not tackled early
by the university management, it might lead to several
attacks on the institution by indigenes of the communities whose lands were
occupied by the universities and unleashing of terrors in form of hostility and
violent activities such as; robbery, rape, kidnapping, riot, mob-lynching,
unrest, cultism, vandalization of university properties and disruption of
educational activities in the institution which might obviously affect the
administration of universities.
Regrettably, not much is known of the involvement of these federal
universities in the provision of corporate social responsibilities to their
host communities. This indicates that universities in South South might have
failed to meet the needs of their host communities. The researcher wonders if managerial ethics actually
serve as a correlate of corporate social responsibility in the administration
of universities. That is, if any of these managerial ethics relates to
corporate social responsibility in the administration of universities. It is on
this basis that the problem of the study put in question form is: To what extent
do managerial ethics serve as correlates of corporate social
responsibilities in the administration of
universities in South South, Nigeria?
1.3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of the study is to examine managerial ethics as
correlates of corporate social responsibility in the administration of universities in South South, Nigeria.
Specifically, the study sought to:
1.
ascertain the
extent to which utilitarian approach relates to corporate social
responsibilities in the administration of universities.
2.
determine the
extent to which individualism approach relates to corporate social
responsibilities in the administration of universities.
3.
ascertain the
extent to which moral rights approach relates to corporate social responsibilities
in the administration of universities.
4.
determine the
extent to which justice approach relates to corporate social responsibilities in
the administration of universities.
5.
ascertain the
extent to which virtue approach relates to corporate social responsibilities in
the administration of universities.
6.
investigate
the extent to which common good approach relates to corporate social
responsibilities in the administration of universities.
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The following research questions were asked for the study:
1.
What is the extent to which utilitarian
approach relates to corporate social responsibilities in the administration of universities in South South, Nigeria?
2.
To what extent does
individualism approach relates to corporate social responsibilities in the administration
of universities in South South, Nigeria?
3.
What is the extent to which moral
rights approach relates to corporate social responsibilities in the administration
of universities in South South, Nigeria?
4.
To what
extent does justice approach relates to corporate social responsibilities for in
the administration of universities in South South, Nigeria?
5.
What is the extent
to which virtue approach relates to corporate social responsibilities in the administration
of universities in South South, Nigeria?
6.
To what
extent does common good approach relates to corporate social responsibilities in
the administration of universities in South South, Nigeria?
1.5 HYPOTHESES
The following
null hypotheses were formulated and tested at 0.05 levels of significance for the
study:
HO1: Utilitarian approach does not significantly
relate to corporate social responsibilities in the administration of universities in South South, Nigeria
HO2: Individualism
approach does not significantly relate to corporate social responsibilities in the administration
of universities in South South, Nigeria
HO3: Moral rights approach does
not significantly relate to corporate social responsibilities in the administration of universities in South South, Nigeria
HO4: Justice approach does not
significantly relate to corporate social responsibilities in the administration of universities in South South, Nigeria
HO5: Virtue approach does not significantly relate to corporate
social responsibilities in the administration of universities in South South, Nigeria
HO6: Common good approach does not significantly relate
to corporate social responsibilities in the administration of universities in South South, Nigeria.
1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
STUDY
The relevance of a good research work is highly dependent on its
contribution to the advancement of knowledge. The findings of the study will be
beneficial to university administrators, host communities, administrators in
other parastals, intending administrators and future researchers.
The findings of the study will equip university administrators with
the relevant approaches of managerial ethics while carrying out corporate
social responsibilities to ensure effective administration of universities. Also,
the findings of the study will enable university administrators to ascertain
the various types of corporate social responsibility interventions needed by
host communities and also assess the institutions in their quest to be socially
responsible. More so, it will enable them to ascertain their level of
involvement in the provision of corporate social responsibilities in their
respective host communities in South South, Nigeria. These will make university
administrators self conscious of their ethical standards and practices in order
to ensure adequate provision of corporate social responsibilities to their host
community to ensure a peaceful atmosphere in the administration of universities in South South, Nigeria.
The findings of the study will enhance a harmonious relationship
between host communities and universities which will guarantee an open and
viable channel for information sharing, provision of social amenities and
peaceful co-existence. The provision of these social amenities will bring about
sustainable development in the community which will to a large extent,
eradicate poverty and bring about improved standard of living.
The findings of the study will enable administrators in other
parastatals to adopt managerial ethics as a means of achieving organizational
goals and objectives, through seminars and workshops.
The findings of the study will enable intending administrators
both in education and otherwise acquire the right knowledge on managerial
ethics and corporate social responsibilities, which will enable them not to
make the mistakes of their predecessors. This however, will make them very
effective and efficient administrators.
Finally, to
future researchers, the findings of the study will be of immense benefit to
them in that it will serve as a source of literature in their research
endeavour. It will also provide them with ready tools, guidance and direction to
carry out their further studies.
1.7
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The study was delimited to senior academic staff and senior administrative
staff in the six federal universities in South South, Nigeria. South South,
Nigeria is made up of six states; Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Cross-Rivers, Delta, Edo
and Rivers. It consists of six federal universities namely; University of
Benin, University of Calabar, University of Port Harcourt, University of Uyo,
Federal University Otuoke and Federal University of Petroleum Resources Effurun.
The study focused on managerial ethics as
correlates of corporate social responsibilities in the administration of
universities. However, the study specifically addressed the extent to which utilitarian
approach, individualism approach, moral rights approach, justice approach, virtue
approach and common good approach relate to corporate social responsibilities in
the administration of universities in
South South, Nigeria.
Click “DOWNLOAD NOW” below to get the complete Projects
FOR QUICK HELP CHAT WITH US NOW!
+(234) 0814 780 1594
Login To Comment