Utilitarianism and the of James Hardie Company - Case Study Example

Principles of Responsible Commerce Name Instructor Subject Date Introduction There is a lot of duties that a corporation is involved in, they range of production, distribution, marketing and so forth. In order for all these functions to work and run smoothly the firm has to utilize the help of employees at every stage of the process. In some industries there exists toxic fumes that are produced and can harm the bodies and the health of the employees. It is the duty of the management to ensure that the employees are safeguarded against such incidents. This is what is termed as an ethical duty towards the employees. This paper is going to explore the unethical case that has been reported regarding the James Hardie executives. Utilitarianism and the case of James Hardie Company Companies in this modern age go to far extents to ensure that the image they show the world id positive and according to the values of humanity. This is the reason why they engage in corporate social responsibility and positive advertising in order to shape public perception. However in this instance the ethical duty of James Hardie Company was violated. Cases of lung cancer were reported from workers who had previously in the company. This prompted uprising from the media and the public as well, this was unethical and irresponsible of the executives. According to utilitarianism a person can commit a necessary evil if the justification they give show that the evil was for the greater good (Pyle, 1998, p. 293). This is a tactic used by very many people in today’s world, in relation to the case study the executives of the company were found guilty of falsifying documents regarding the compensation of the people who were suffering deform asbestos disease. This means that they lied to the public, to the people and to the law. The foundation that was supposed to pay the suffering people was almost facing bankruptcy and the value they were being paid was undervalued by 1.5 billion US dollars. Analyzing the situation critically one may be convinced to attest that the company executives had no other option than to lie to the people. Utilitarianism has it that a person does not always have to tell the truth if it is going to cause harm to the people affected parties. In this instance the truth would have meant that the people would find out that their compensation was already running low and the chance of accessing it was minimal. This truth would have sent a wave of despair and pain to already suffering people. The chances of such a person falling into mental depression are high which means their recovery form the diseases would have been lowered. The result would be that critical cases would be more of those people (Scarre, (2002, pg. 129). The executive considered this factor and concluded that the truth was not the best form of action in that given scenario. I tend to agree with them on this, making people suffer psychologically is not something anyone would wish to do, so it is better to avoid it. However, one might argue that in utilitarianism, one must hold to the general principle that morality must depend on balancing the beneficial and harmful consequences of one's conduct. This according to me is a factor that the executives considered, but unfortunately got caught and the truth came out thereby leading to more damage (Johnson, 2007, p.209). In looking at this unethical matter that occurred, one has to consider all the factors that were involved in the decision making of the executives in order to understand their situation. The company had been under a lot of heat due to the incident in the months that had preceded this incident. Their public image had been tarnished and their corporate social responsibility was being questioned all over by the media and the general public at large. In the current world consumers do not want to work with companies that have negative public images and perceptions. So it can be argued that the company had been facing a rough time financially due to this, this had then decreased their sales and revenues and therefore their profits. The employees in the company at the time might have been unproductive due to the treatment that had followed their predecessors. Such scenarios may wreck the financial stability of the firm and threaten their future progress. The executive has the vital duty of navigating a firm towards the right direction in terms of the economic environment which to the James Hardie Company was unfavorable. Declaring that the company had been struggling over the last couple of months, amid the bad cooperate image the company had may be a bad move that would have made the stock market react negatively and the stock of the company plummet thereby the company would lose its shareholders and almost face bankruptcy. This is the situation the executives were faced with, the dilemma was told the truth and ruin a company that has been for decades or lie, keep the company afloat and eventually pay off the suffering victims. Utilitarianism is not an excuse for the decisions that were made, nor is it a hall pass since it has its own demerits; for instance, how can one measure the real and true consequences of their decisions and form of action? (Larmer, 2002, p. 23) Almost impossible. There is however no quantifiable S.I unit that can be utilized to put a scale on the real value of human life as compared to money or a company. It does not take a human rights activist to realize that, but there are many viewpoints to this. The executives acted from their angle that seemed reasonable and could be justified according to utilitarianism, but what about the real human emotions that were hurt or the people who succumbed to the cancer due to delayed money that could have saved their lives. That is priceless, however, it was not simply for the executives as well to let go of a company they had built for some, all their lives and rick loses it to a bad economic turmoil that could have been avoided. Business responsibility A business is not just a profit making organization that is supposed to give people products in exchange for their money and their loyalty to a brand. Bringing in the concept of brand sll business have an obligation of actualizing their, and this is what is done by marketers and the advertisers. However it cannot be perfected if the company is unethical towards the public, its employees. In this instance the company was even unethical to the rule of law. The following are areas in which a company should be responsible towards. The public – the public makes the general consumer, the potential investor and the potential employees. The company has an obligation of luring in all these prospective categories for the good of the company. Research has shown that people like to work for companies that support the values of humanity, ethical behavior and other quality values that represents sustainability and respect and honor. Currently, most interns, and employees want to work for corporations like Google not because of the good pay but also because they hold ethical values. This was not the case for James Hardie, the executive overlooked this fact. The government – the authority that makes regulations in a given state or set the rules of trade have to be respected by any organization seeking to set up shop in the territory they command. James Hardie Company did not observe this factor since it forwarded documents that were misleading to the government. One may argue that some companies, for instance multinationals have greater extensively across the globe as compared to a single government so the government does not matter that much. This would be incorrect since, research has shown that multinational companies are the ones that go to great heights to ensure that they comply with the law of a given nation in order to facilitate trade (Hilgert, Truesdell, & Lochhaas, 2001, p235). This is a wide area since it also touches on how companies need to pay taxes as a sign of being responsible to the government and so forth. The bottom line is that James Hardie Company did not observes this. To the employees- this is the typical incident that applies to most corporations. In some instance the unethical behavior stretches to sexual harassment where employees are manipulated into having sexual relation with their bosses in order to win favors around the office. In this instance however, the executives were unethical in the sense that they did not take measure to ensure that their employees did not contract the asbestos disease. It was their duty to know the lurking danger that would befall their employees since they are supposed to carry out research of any harmful material that may affect the human body. According to the law a person or an institution cannot plead innocent due to the fact that they did not possess the necessary information. The company failed to be responsible here as well and was liable to the court. Companies that are responsible to all these stakeholders accrue some benefit to their company. Some of the benefits include brand loyalty- this is essential since the company is able to maintain a larger market share than its competitors. The company is guaranteed a certain limit of profits even in adverse competitive market scenarios. Brand strengthening- the public does not only associate themselves with a brand due to the fact that they want to buy their products, it goes deeper than that. The public want to work, participate in events of brands they consider great and have positive impact to the society (Goree, 2007 pg. 34). Profitability has been identified as one of the least things the modern employee looks for in a company they are seeking to work for. Global penetration – if a company is ethical in a given nation the government of that nation cannot discourage its penetration in their market therefore allowing the company to accrue a lot of profits from the given nation. This allows the company to gather enough capital that will then enable them penetrate to other markets thereby increasing globalization. Companies that are irresponsible also tend to be repelling to other governments thereby are denied permits to those nations, this threatens their globalization efforts. Conclusion In conclusion it is vital to note that responsibility in a firm is essential in the improvement of work and towards the working to the achievement of the company’s objectives and strategic goals. The employees are the major resource of this process and their well-being should be encouraged at all times. Their motivation should be boosted and maintained at levels that guarantee the maximum productivity of the company. According to previous researches the various ways of employee motivators revolve around ethical duties of the company and it is surprising that higher pays and bonuses are some of the least motivators for potential and current employees. It is vital to mention that the responsible executive stimulate the same effect in their employees which makes them execute the same attributes in their behavior. This creates an atmosphere of respect and ethics around the workplace. An ethical company does not also get into disputes with the law or with the general public, since being irresponsible is the only way a company becomes prone to general opinion and negative public perception. It is important for the executives of any firm to realize that they are not only managers of a company but also leaders running all the stakeholders of the firm. Unlike managers who do things right, leaders do the right things and this is what they should at all times. References Goree, K. (2007). Ethics in the workplace. Mason, Ohio: Thomson/South-Western. Hilgert, R. L., Truesdell, J. L., & Lochhaas, P. H. (2001). Christian ethics in the workplace. St. Louis, MO: Concordia. Johnson, C. E. (2007). Ethics in the workplace: Tools and tactics for organizational transformation. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications. Larmer, R. A. H. (2002). Ethics in the workplace: Selected readings in business ethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning. Mill, J. S. (1910). Utilitarianism, liberty, and representative government. London: Dent. Pyle, A. (1998). Utilitarianism. London: Routledge/Thoemmes Press. Read One Philosopher’s Approach to Business Ethics in your textbook, Shaw et al (2013), pp.105-112. Use the content to develop your essay. Scarre, G. (2002). Utilitarianism. London: Routledge. Smart, J. J. C., & Williams, B. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and against. Cambridge [Eng.: University Press. Read More