Whistlebolwing, Product Safety and Corporate Ethics Programs - Assignment Example

Running Head: SHORT ESSAY QUESTIONS Name Course Institution Tutor Date Question 1B Human rights should be upheld no matter individual status in society and the situations they find themselves in. Every human being should treat the other in manner that upholds their rights, which in most countries are well indicated and entrenched in their constitutions. In this case, it does not matter whether it is in a prisoner situation, but all people should be treated and accorded their rights and privileges accordingly. Violation of human rights is a serious crime in Australia and has severe legal consequences to violators. Sometimes, violations occur in the eyes of authorities that are responsible for upholding them. This is in breach of the law and such authorities should face legal action as well as the assailants. In the Manus facility case, asylum seekers were raped, sexually assaulted and tortured by their fellow inmates. All this was happening with the knowledge of management who did not do anything about it. Mr St George blew the whistle on what was going on in the facility to the media. As a result he is facing legal action due to breach of contact by revealing the affairs of the institution. The ethical dilemma faced in this situation is in regard to whether he should have blown the whistle on the sexual, violations in the facility or face legal action for breaching confidentially with his employer, G4S. Having raised the issue with management of the facility management, no action was taken to bring the violators to book or even subject those violated to medical attention. They continued being held in the same faculty with the perpetrators. Further more, the victims were intimidated and tortured to keeping silent about the matter. On realising this Mr St George blew the whistle on the facility. Another dilemma that Mr St George was facing is whether to maintain loyalty to G4S or protect human rights that were being violated in the facility. De George’s guidelines for whistleblowing According to Richard De George, loyalty of an employee towards the employer should not always be a priority. On the other hand, whistleblowing is not always a morally permissible action. Though freedom of speech is advocated for in the law, it is limited and individuals should not commit libel, therefore, the guard was right to blow the whistle on his employer since he in so doing he was considering the greater good other than loyalty to G4S as his employer was right to . Whistleblowing is disadvantageous to firms and it, therefore, requires adequate justification. The first justification should prove that there is serious physical harm being suffered. In this case, rape is a serious physical offence and therefore justifies the action. Secondly, before the whistleblowing action, adequate reporting to management or supervision regarding the same issue should have been made. Whistleblowing should not take place when concerned authorities are unaware of the harms going on. Authorities at Manus facility were aware of the rape incidences and yet victims and perpetrators were still kept in the same facility. De George also advocates for exploitation of all internal channels to solve the problem before whistle blowing. The three guidelines are set for permissible whistleblowing. Further, De George suggests two obligatory guidelines. There should be documentary evidence on dangers likely to occur as a result of the harms being committed. There should also be a good reason enough to believe that the action of whistleblowing will eventually deal with the problem. Though there was no documentation of the atrocities at Manus, there was enough evidence for George the guard to believe that whistleblowing would solve the problem since no action was being taken by the management despite their knowledge of the situation James’ criticism of De George’s guidelines Gene James does not concur with De George on his guidelines towards whistleblowing. First, he suggests that whistleblowing should not only be concerned with case of physical harm but also other violations like organisational insider trading or violation of privacy laws. In this case, there was a violation of human rights protection which as the responsibility of the authorities at the facility. In this case, neglect by authorities also called for the action He also views whistle blowing is more obligatory because it is done when there is known harm which the blower believes should be stopped. He also further explains that whistleblowing does not mean disloyalty to the employer or the firm. It may help the firm to deal with problems that are happening within it. Putting the issue to the public limelight brought attention to other authorities relevant to the case at Manus. James also criticises De George where supervisors may be responsible for violation. In this case, reporting may be a challenging factor and hence internal channels may destroy evidence or even victimise the whistle blower. Employees may also lack access to documentation of violations and their effects; hence this is not applicable according to James. This scenario was very possible in this case and hence Mr St George was facing confidentiality breach charges Corporate ethics programs and whistleblowing prevention Corporate ethics programs can eliminate the need to have whistleblowing within organisations. They offer guidelines on how employees in an organisation should conduct themselves ethically to avoid situations where they are faced with dilemmas that may call for whistleblowing. Ethical programs help stakeholders and employees to understand the value and essence of the business in operation. This way ethical behaviour is enhanced where undesirable conduct is eliminated. The programs also create a decision making criteria that provides a guideline on how such situations should be handled. Furthermore, it creates trust within the firm and hence problems that may lead to whistleblowing are eliminated. Question 2B Product safety and contract theory New rules to govern the labelling of nutritional information on food packaging have raised a lot of concerns among stake holders in Australia. They have argued that it will bring an additional $200 million in costs that are unnecessary. On the other hand, authorities argue that it is a necessary undertaking that will see a reduction in cases of obesity and chronic diseases which have been on the increase in Australia (Drummond, 2013 ). They also claim that the costs of labelling are far much lower than what it costs the government to treat obesity and chronic illnesses caused by unhealthy foods. According to the contract theory, a firm offers a consumer a product with known characteristics which the consumer knowingly and freely agrees to in exchange for a given monetary value which is the price. Therefore, no misrepresentation of the product or coercion to buy should be present. In this scenario, consumers are offered the option of buying packaged foods by manufacturers and choose to buy them out of their own will driven the expectations of they have in the product Consumers should always be ware of what they are buying into in the caveat emptor principle. In this view, manufacturers should adequately disclose the sugar, fat and salt contents of food products so that consumers can make informed and safe decisions. Therefore, manufacturers should comply with the set rules to ensure that consumers buy food products that they know exactly what percentage of harmful contents they contain. Manufactures should not misrepresent these content stars to mislead consumers. Consumers should not also be coerced into buying food products and should rationally act out of their own free will depending on information they have about the products. However, a challenge with the contract theory is that there is an assumption that consumers make direct agreement with consumers which is not the case. Manufacturers could also use disclaimers hence nullifying any contractual duty that the seller may have with the consumer. For instance some products may warn of excessive consumption of sugary or fatty foods hence waiving the contract Product safety and due care theory When selling a food product to a consumer, there is implied due care duty that the seller owes the consumer. In this case, the product should not in any way bring harm to the consumer. Implications of consumption of sugars, fats and slats should be well indicated. Consumers and sellers do not meet as equals, therefore, the due care theory takes care of the consumer to prevent them from harms that may be waived by disclaimers. Manufacturers should therefore design their products in manner that the food packaged should have adequate information after research and testing has been carried out. The production process should also guarantee food safety to the consumer. Food products should also contain directions for use and warnings that are relevant to them. If packaged food products are responsible from causing obesity and other cardiovascular illnesses, this is a foreseeable harm and manufacturers should, therefore, indicate the nutritional information to have the consumer informed. Food manufacturers owe consumers a duty of care by preventing these harmful illnesses. Though consumption of some of these food products have been proved to cause illness in the long term it is not a clearly foreseeable harm as consumers themselves should practice control and health living by limiting intake of certain food products. According to the AFGC some of the labelling may be misleading as the content in some foods is healthy though packaging may indicate otherwise. Even when labelling of packed food is done, there is no way of proving that manufactures have exercised enough due care towards avoiding obesity and other illnesses. According to AFGC, Consumers on the other hand should exercise healthy living through healthy eating. Therefore, adopting the health star rating system may only solve the problem to some extent and in only regard to specific foods and not others. Reference Drummond , M, 2013, Financial Review. Retrieved November 29, 2013, from Read More

Though freedom of speech is advocated for in the law, it is limited and individuals should not commit libel, therefore, the guard was right to blow the whistle on his employer since he in so doing he was considering the greater good other than loyalty to G4S as his employer was right to . Whistleblowing is disadvantageous to firms and it, therefore, requires adequate justification. The first justification should prove that there is serious physical harm being suffered. In this case, rape is a serious physical offence and therefore justifies the action.

Secondly, before the whistleblowing action, adequate reporting to management or supervision regarding the same issue should have been made. Whistleblowing should not take place when concerned authorities are unaware of the harms going on. Authorities at Manus facility were aware of the rape incidences and yet victims and perpetrators were still kept in the same facility. De George also advocates for exploitation of all internal channels to solve the problem before whistle blowing. The three guidelines are set for permissible whistleblowing.

Further, De George suggests two obligatory guidelines. There should be documentary evidence on dangers likely to occur as a result of the harms being committed. There should also be a good reason enough to believe that the action of whistleblowing will eventually deal with the problem. Though there was no documentation of the atrocities at Manus, there was enough evidence for George the guard to believe that whistleblowing would solve the problem since no action was being taken by the management despite their knowledge of the situation James’ criticism of De George’s guidelines Gene James does not concur with De George on his guidelines towards whistleblowing.

First, he suggests that whistleblowing should not only be concerned with case of physical harm but also other violations like organisational insider trading or violation of privacy laws. In this case, there was a violation of human rights protection which as the responsibility of the authorities at the facility. In this case, neglect by authorities also called for the action He also views whistle blowing is more obligatory because it is done when there is known harm which the blower believes should be stopped.

He also further explains that whistleblowing does not mean disloyalty to the employer or the firm. It may help the firm to deal with problems that are happening within it. Putting the issue to the public limelight brought attention to other authorities relevant to the case at Manus. James also criticises De George where supervisors may be responsible for violation. In this case, reporting may be a challenging factor and hence internal channels may destroy evidence or even victimise the whistle blower.

Employees may also lack access to documentation of violations and their effects; hence this is not applicable according to James. This scenario was very possible in this case and hence Mr St George was facing confidentiality breach charges Corporate ethics programs and whistleblowing prevention Corporate ethics programs can eliminate the need to have whistleblowing within organisations. They offer guidelines on how employees in an organisation should conduct themselves ethically to avoid situations where they are faced with dilemmas that may call for whistleblowing.

Ethical programs help stakeholders and employees to understand the value and essence of the business in operation. This way ethical behaviour is enhanced where undesirable conduct is eliminated. The programs also create a decision making criteria that provides a guideline on how such situations should be handled. Furthermore, it creates trust within the firm and hence problems that may lead to whistleblowing are eliminated. Question 2B Product safety and contract theory New rules to govern the labelling of nutritional information on food packaging have raised a lot of concerns among stake holders in Australia.

They have argued that it will bring an additional $200 million in costs that are unnecessary.

Read More