Ethical Issues at the Farm - Case Study Example

Business Ethics Name Institution Date Course Part 1: Ethical issues The situation at the farm revealed several reasons for concern regarding children and child labour. There was massive evidence of use of young children in the farm, where they were assigned tasks but with no pay. These children would be asked to carry out the physically demanding and physically dangerous tasks of collecting coffee pods from the plantations, and pealing the pods to collect and dry the coffee beans. This job is very tedious, and there was evidence of the children being forced to work longer hours with no pay. Also evident was high cases of child trafficking since most of the children working in the farms were brought here from other parts of the country while others from neighbouring countries. Researchers have also found that children are forced to work long hours and are among the worst paid of all labourers (Bequele & Boyden, 1988). Boaz & Huser (2006) have described child labour as involvement of children under 15 years in any economic activity. The authors also note that the minimum age could be debateable but is usually agreed to be 18 years. Children have also been found to endure severe working conditions including health hazards as well as potential abuse. Employers have capitalised on the docility of these children and have recognised that these labourers are not able to form legal unions that could help them change their conditions. These manipulations have significantly stifled the development of the youth since the working conditions do not provide them with any stimulation for the promotion of their mental and physical development. Again, these children are deprived of the basic joys of childhood and are instead relegated to a life of drudgery. Cigno et al (2002) explain that child labour has been in existence for as long as man has. The authors further say that in some instances, child labour was not seen as “bad” in those particular environments. But with the acceleration of development, child labour has been increasingly considered as an expression of poverty, both an effect and cause of underdevelopment. West Africa has been known for cases of child labour and trafficking and these have been associated with the high poverty levels in the region. Other forms of child exploitation have been identified as poor wages, child slavery and violence. Boaz & Huser (2006) report that in plantations in Ghana and Ivory Coast, children worked for several years without the knowledge of the external world. Only after the New York Times and the Miami Herald published a series of articles that focused on “bounded labour” like child slaves on cocoa plantations in Cote d’Ivoire, the issue attracted attention and was conceived as a problem that needed to be solved. The focus of these incidences evidenced great conflict between the farmers and children working in cocoa farms in these West African nations and the main consumers of the cocoa beans in the industrialized world. Researchers have further revealed that the exploitation of children in Cote d’Ivoire is a consequence of the political system in the country and the corresponding structure for production that was established by the French colonialists and later continued under the rule of the first Ivorian president. Part 2: Utilitarian and a Kantian analysis Hull (1979) believed that two fundamental ethical theory types exist: those that are based on the notion of one choosing his actions in an effort to ensure maximum value or values that are expected as the consequences of such actions (these usually called teleological or consequentialist theories); and those that are based on the notion of individuals choosing their actions in accordance with standards of duty or obligation that does not refer to consequences but to the nature of actions as well as the motives held by those performing them (these are also called deontological theories). Hull (1979), while discussing teleological theories explains that an individual’s actions will be considered morally right either if by doing it an individual brings about the best attainable consequences of the situation, or if the action is that which would have the best among attainable consequences if all people did it given that kind of situation. Therefore, it is the badness or goodness of the consequences of those actions alone that will make them wrong or right, as opposed to anything intrinsically bad or good about the actions themselves. Since these theories often involve the notion of utility in the production of good consequences, they are usually referred to as utilitarian theories. Application of the discussion above to the situation at the cocoa farms reveals great unethical practices that are not right and should be discouraged by all means. It is understood that having the children working in the farms not only exposes them to the harsh farm environments, but offers them no stimulation or motivation for development in any way. By confining them and subjecting them to the harsh conditions, the children remain stuck in pathetic, inhuman state of poverty and intellectual disadvantage since they are denied access to basic education and well being. In the farms, it is evident that most children are not there by choice. The consequences of having them work in the farms are therefore not to their best interests. The utilitarian theory therefore considers these practices unethical and not right. Other researchers have also supported the arguments of utilitarian theories (Velasquez, 2001; Bentham, 1907; Snoeyenbos & Humber, 2002). According to Velasquez (2001), an action will be considered right from an ethical point of view if the sum total of utilities that are produced by the act will be greater than the sum total of utilities that are produced by any other act that could have been performed in its place. Bentham (1907) describes utility as that property in any given object that tends to produce benefit, pleasure, happiness, advantage or good so as to prevent the occurrence of pain, mischief, unhappiness or evil to the party whose interests are under consideration. Hull (1997) pointed out that utilitarian theories could be divided into two with regard to the decision making procedure or judgement about whether a particular act is of relative minimum disutility or relative maximum utility: act utilitarian theory and rule utilitarian theory. The children working in the farms did not show any form of happiness, benefit or pleasure. There’s is a prison that they could not run away from due to their family backgrounds, poverty, and restrictions presented by the environment. Bentham (1907) believes that for an action to be ethical, then the interests of the concerned party must be considered and the action must bring happiness to the party. Well, this is not the case for these children. Their interests are not considered and they remain helpless victims of circumstance. The act utilitarian theory is of the view that utilitarian principle should be applied to particular situations. We therefore have to find out what the net function is for each alternative possible act in the situation. The right act will then be defined as that which has greater net utility than the other alternatives. Doing any of the other alternatives will therefore be wrong since it will not maximize the balance of positive over negative value in the world while a person’s duty should always be to engage in the act that has such maximization as its consequence. Rule utilitarianism holds that we are generally to tell what to be done in particular situations by appealing to a rule like that of truth telling, as opposed to asking what particular action will result to the best consequences in the particular circumstances. Determination of these rules should be by a retrospective calculation of the possible rules that have the greatest net utility. A rule utilitarian is able to revise the rules in light of experiences, and can incorporate as exceptions the types of situations where acting according to the simple truth-telling rule may regularly lead to worse consequences than not. Utilitarian theory therefore finds that the decision to have the children work in the farms does not conform to what is regarded as ethical. It is a violation of children’s rights, with significant negative consequences. Act utilitarianism, while suggesting that the principle could be applied to particular situations, supports that the action undertaken must promise great net utility than the other alternatives. The situation at the farms does not hold any of these values Kantian theory, on the other hand, derives from deontological theories that hold the view that although an act may have good consequences, some acts are always wrong. Actions are therefore judged as unethical or ethical basing on the duty or the intentions of the actor. Kantian theory includes duty for the sake of duty without consideration to happiness of humanity. As described by Kant (1956), duty is the action that is objectively practical in accordance to this law and that excludes inclination from its determining grounds. Kant therefore mentions only two kinds of action, having acted from duty and from duty. The former, which could be regarded as legality, is possible even when inclinations alone are the determining grounds of the will, but for the later, moral worth or morality, can be conceded only in the event that the actions occurs from duty, that is, merely for the sake of the law (Kant, 1956). He also identified two kinds of imperatives, categorical and hypothetical imperatives. Those that are hypothetical are also conditional while the categorical ones are unconditional, and these must be obeyed in any given condition. By describing the maxim, Kant attempted to establish universal law that could be true under any circumstances. In this sense, Kantian ethics greatly emphasizes a universal morality, where we should do to others what we would want to be done to us. Kantian ethics demands that if a given action passes the test of categorical imperative, then the action is ethical The situation at the plantations falls short, once again, of ethical requirements. Kant believes in peaceful business where one does to the other what they would accept themselves. Kantian theory respected universal law that protected everyone’s interests. The children in the farms are victims of oppression and exploitation and do not have their interests at the table when getting into the business. Kantian categorical imperatives imply that we should do good, and that is that. It therefore greatly rebukes the mistreatment of young children who are exposed to all sorts of hardship with no one to care for their rights. Part three: contract or no contract Businesses are run to make revenue and as much as possible increase revenue by exploiting opportunities and maximizing profits. Opportunities may be encountered in many ways depending on the business itself, but one of the most favoured is the sourcing of raw materials at prices that are as cheap as possible. The proposal from the business agent in Cote d’Ivoire that could result to a 40% reduction on the price of cocoa beans is a great opportunity for the business to realised great manufacturing cost reduction and better its net income. It is therefore a great offer. Recent developments in the business world have meant that businesses have greater responsibility with regard to establishment and adherence to acceptable ethical standards. It is true that some managers have not taken matters to do with business ethics seriously, but a greater percentage will agree that while businesses should aim to increase profits, they should do so legally (Hooker, 2003). Other managers have recognized the need to be ethical but they have identified their ethical duty with legal profit making for the farm. They therefore find no reason to be ethical in any further sense, and therefore no need for background beyond their knowledge of business law. Great economists have also contributed the discussion about business ethics. Milton Friedman, for example, was of the opinion that corporate officers did not have any obligation to support social causes like hiring the hard-core unemployed to reduce poverty, or having to reduce pollution beyond that which is mandated by law. This economist believed that officers’ main task was to maximize company profit. But even while this economist was focused on the increasing of business profits, he still stressed that managers must ensure that businesses conduct operations subject to the rule of law as well as the “rules of the game” that ensure that business is conducted with open and free competition without fraud and deception (Friedman, 1970). There has been great reliance on the rule of the law while companies conduct business and the general trend has been the belief that so long as businesses remain within law, then mangers have nothing to worry about. Rules have also become dominant over ethics when they have been made the ceiling rather than the floor for the desired conduct- like when organizations decide not to go beyond the minimum requirements of the prevailing code of ethics provisions. As Michael (2006) further explains, even rules have limitations. Many of these limitations have been known for some time and have been considered widely. Some involve scope while others content. In some cases, rules may even make it difficult to make the decision to do good (Michael, 2006). But the one thing that stands out in the case for the plantation famers and their trends in employment of children is that the influence of the law has been very minimal. Many social advocates and consumers believe that businesses need to not only make profit but also ensure that enough consideration is given to the social implications of their daily activities. Social responsibility has been defined as the business’ obligation to ensure maximum positive impact but minimize its negative impact on the society (this society includes children). Conduction of business without respect of ethical responsibility has been greatly costly for several businesses across the world. These destructing consequences have included drop in stock prices and court cases that have usually resulted to great losses. This discussion, therefore, influences any manager who is faced by a decision to either focus on maximization of profit or sacrifice the company profits and respect ethics. The case of the cocoa traders in Cote d’Ivoire and their exploitation of children in their farms is a direct failure to observe ethical requirements and social responsibility. These children are exploited to unimaginable extents. When children work without pay in the harshest of working conditions then it is not fair to become part of the business chain and it is not in the interests of my company to get involved with these business men. Accepting to honour this contract directly means that this company supports the inhuman treatment of these children in Cote d’Ivoire. The business chain will begin in the cocoa farms in Cote d’Ivoire up to the final consumers, but this will company play a critical role in this chain. Furthermore, recent years have seen increased global concern and awareness of the situation, and involving in business with these farm owners will certainly attract more problems than benefits for the company. I would therefore not accept the offer. List of References Michael, ML, 2006, Business Ethics: The Law of Rules, A working paper of the Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative, No, 19 Friedman M, 1970, The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase its Profits, New York Times Magazine, Reprinted in Thomas Donaldson and Al Gini, eds., Case Studies in Business Ethics, 4thed., Prentice-Hall (19xx) 56-61. Hull, RT, 1979, The varieties of Ethical Theories, Buffalo Psychiatric Center Bentham, J, 1907, Principles of Morals and Legislation, Oxford, Clarendon. Wood, AW, 1999, Kant’s ethical thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Kant, I, 1956, A Critique of Practical Reason, New York: Liberal Arts Press. Bequele, A. & J. Boyden, 1988, Working Children: Current Trends and Policy Responses, International Labour Review, 127(2): 153-171. Cigno A, Rosati FC, & Tzannatos Z, 2002, Child Labour Handbook, Social Protection Discussion Paper Series, No. 0206 Snoeyenbos, M & Humber, J, 2002, Utilitarianism and Business Ethics, in Robert Frederick, ed. A Companion to Business Ethics, UK: Blackwell. Boaz, M & Huser A, 2006, Child labour and coca production in West Africa: the case of Cote D’Ivoire and Ghana, Allkopi AS, Oslo Velasquez, MG, 2001, Business Ethics Concepts & Cases, Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA. Read More

Researchers have further revealed that the exploitation of children in Cote d’Ivoire is a consequence of the political system in the country and the corresponding structure for production that was established by the French colonialists and later continued under the rule of the first Ivorian president. Part 2: Utilitarian and a Kantian analysis Hull (1979) believed that two fundamental ethical theory types exist: those that are based on the notion of one choosing his actions in an effort to ensure maximum value or values that are expected as the consequences of such actions (these usually called teleological or consequentialist theories); and those that are based on the notion of individuals choosing their actions in accordance with standards of duty or obligation that does not refer to consequences but to the nature of actions as well as the motives held by those performing them (these are also called deontological theories).

Hull (1979), while discussing teleological theories explains that an individual’s actions will be considered morally right either if by doing it an individual brings about the best attainable consequences of the situation, or if the action is that which would have the best among attainable consequences if all people did it given that kind of situation. Therefore, it is the badness or goodness of the consequences of those actions alone that will make them wrong or right, as opposed to anything intrinsically bad or good about the actions themselves.

Since these theories often involve the notion of utility in the production of good consequences, they are usually referred to as utilitarian theories. Application of the discussion above to the situation at the cocoa farms reveals great unethical practices that are not right and should be discouraged by all means. It is understood that having the children working in the farms not only exposes them to the harsh farm environments, but offers them no stimulation or motivation for development in any way.

By confining them and subjecting them to the harsh conditions, the children remain stuck in pathetic, inhuman state of poverty and intellectual disadvantage since they are denied access to basic education and well being. In the farms, it is evident that most children are not there by choice. The consequences of having them work in the farms are therefore not to their best interests. The utilitarian theory therefore considers these practices unethical and not right. Other researchers have also supported the arguments of utilitarian theories (Velasquez, 2001; Bentham, 1907; Snoeyenbos & Humber, 2002).

According to Velasquez (2001), an action will be considered right from an ethical point of view if the sum total of utilities that are produced by the act will be greater than the sum total of utilities that are produced by any other act that could have been performed in its place. Bentham (1907) describes utility as that property in any given object that tends to produce benefit, pleasure, happiness, advantage or good so as to prevent the occurrence of pain, mischief, unhappiness or evil to the party whose interests are under consideration.

Hull (1997) pointed out that utilitarian theories could be divided into two with regard to the decision making procedure or judgement about whether a particular act is of relative minimum disutility or relative maximum utility: act utilitarian theory and rule utilitarian theory. The children working in the farms did not show any form of happiness, benefit or pleasure. There’s is a prison that they could not run away from due to their family backgrounds, poverty, and restrictions presented by the environment.

Bentham (1907) believes that for an action to be ethical, then the interests of the concerned party must be considered and the action must bring happiness to the party. Well, this is not the case for these children. Their interests are not considered and they remain helpless victims of circumstance. The act utilitarian theory is of the view that utilitarian principle should be applied to particular situations.

Read More