Ethical Issues of the Bernie Banton/James Hardie - Case Study Example

Introduction The ethical issues rose in the case of Bernie Banton and James Hardie. Mr. Banton was an employee at James Hardie who contracted the asbestos infections and died in November 2007. The ethical issues identified in the was that 20 directors of James Hardie misled the workers of the company when the media release pronounced that the latest asbestos compensation trust was wholly financed as well as provided certainty for the claimant of asbestos illness. The company had breach their duty of acting with care and diligence. The annual report for James Hardie provided that the company is committed to upholding the highest standards of ethical behavior as well as the code of ethics that commands workers to adhere to the spirit of and also the letter of entire laws and other statutory requirements. The James Hardie code of conduct as well as ethics commands workers to never discuss JH with the media unless one is clearly permitted to do so by investor relation (P.14). inspire, the Hardie board members deprived under the on oath statement to the supreme court, that the main documents of the case, the press release signed by Greg Baxter who is the senior Vice president corporate affairs concerning compensation of asbestos , it was not approved by the members of the board. The Supreme Court turned down the statement as well as held that board members need to approve the press release disgustingly under estimating the value of compensation (Boggio 2013). Since, Australia and Netherlands had no treaty that enables the implementation of civil judgment obtained from Australia, James Hardie industries created a new parent company in Netherlands and transferred roughly $2 billion to the parent company in Netherlands. The assets were lawfully protected from claims for compensation from asbestos victims in Australia like Mr. Banton. The compensation finance from James Hurdle to comply with the requirements of the victims in Australia was grossly insufficient as well as the company had broken a promise on a vow that the assets transferred to the Netherlands might still be existing to claimants (Bowie 1999). The reasons for creating apparent company yin Netherlands together with lawful maneuvers had been to save the company’s cash by take away the right of the asbestos legal compensation which is ethically reprehensible. It might argued that while understanding the threat of asbestos dust as far back as 1898 as well as inspire of the first James Hurdle death of 1966 , James Hardie proceeds to create asbestos products till 1986, with little concern for safety standards as well as duty of crew specifically towards workers as well as clients. These illustrates that the regulators had small impact on the unethical use of strategic ambiguity in James Hardie case (Butler 2008). The Utilitarianism The theory is in normative ethics in which the best ethical actions are the one that capitalize utility. Utility is linked to wellbeing of sentient entity. Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the best moral action is the one that maximizes utility. Utility is defined in various ways, but is usually related to the well. Utilitarianism is therefore a form of substantial is that states the the impact of any action are the standards of right as well as wrong. This perception might be contrasted with virtue ethics that holds virtue as an ethical good. The intent is morally significant. Utilitarianism is definitely dissimilar from other forms of consequentialism like the egoism as it deem every interest same (Cliff Roberson 2009). The ethics issues in the Banton/Hardie as far as Utilitarianism is that the best ethical action wasn’t done that will maximize utility. It can be observed that Mr. Banton was not given the maximize satisfaction by Hardie by ensuring that safety standards at place of work is provided and fully complied as well as the compensation to asbestos victims isn’t fully guaranteed by the company. It is apparent that Hardie is transferring cash to parent company in Netherlands inform of asset which cannot be claimed by Australian government due to the fact that there isn’t treaty entered into between Australia and Netherlands. In this regards, the assets were lawfully protected from claims for compensation from asbestos victims in Australia like Mr. Banton. The compensation finance from James Hurdle to comply with the requirements of the victims in Australia was grossly insufficient as well as the company had broken a promise on a vow that the assets transferred to the Netherlands might site be existing to claimants. The reasons for creating apparent company yin Netherlands together with lawful maneuvers had been to save the company’s cash by take away the right of the asbestos legal compensation which is ethically reprehensible (Goodenough 2008). It can therefore be concluded that utilitarianism requires companies to ensure that there the best ethical actions is the one that capitalize utility. Utility is linked to wellbeing of sentient entity. Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the best moral action is the one that maximizes utility in which it isn’t being observed by Hardie (Gordon 2009). Kantian deontology The hypothesis of deontology provides that we are ethically committed to act in compliance with specific set of rules inspire of the result. In religious deontology, the principles derived from celestial rules so that under the religious law, we are ethically committed not to steal, deceive or recline. The theory holds that some actions in deontology are judged independent of their results. An act might be ethically bad but might accidentally lead to ideal results (Gordon 2009). From the case study, it can be observed that Hardie is not committed to their result which stated that the company is committed to upholding the highest standards of ethical behavior as well as the code of ethics that commands workers to adhere to the spirit of and also the letter of entire laws and other statutory requirements which in reality was not committed. The James Hardie code of conduct as well as ethics command workers to never discuss JH with the media unless one is clearly permitted to do so by investor relation (P.14). inspire, the Hardie board members deprived under the on oath statement to the supreme court, that the main documents of the case, the press release signed by Greg Baxter who is the senior Vice president corporate affairs concerning compensation of asbestos , it was not approved by the members of the board (Helen Anne Molesworth 2003). The Supreme Court turned down the statement as well as held that board members need to approve the press release disgustingly under estimating the value of compensation. It can therefore be concluded that Hardie isn’t committed to their rules and rugalation as set such as maintaining the highest safety standards as well as full compensation to assessor’s victims. Justice theory Theory of justice tires to solve the problem of social justice which is the distribution of goods to the community. According to rawls, he argued for a principled reconciliation of freedom as well as equity which is meant to be applicable to the primary structure of a well organized society. Main to this effort is that account of justices, motivated by David Hume as well as fair options circumstance for parties undergoing such situation. The principle of justice are sought to control the conduct of parties who are recognized to be facing scarcity, as well as thy fare neither unselfish nor self-centered and they have ultimate goal that are seeking to advance, nut wood choose to advance them by way of collaboration with others on agreed terms and conditions. The application of justice theory from the Hardie and Banton case is that, it is apparent that both parties had no mutual cooperation. It s seen that the ri9ghts of workers at Hardies isn’t observed by the companies hence, the safety and health 0of workers is at risk. On the other hand, workers are complaining of poor safety standards with no guaranteed assurance in terms of finance to the asbestos victims. This poor cooperation makes the Hardies company unethical business. In this regards, the right of workers must be upheld by the company, safety at place of work is paramount as well as the concern for the asbestos victims need to be well taken care of by the company in ensuring that justice to both parties is respected (Kline 2010). Right The right is a lawful, societal or moral principle of freedom that is, right are the basic normative rules concerning what is permitted of individual or owed to individual, as per legal system, social rule or moral theory. Right are of vital importance in ethics more specifically theories of justice as well as deontology. thought are at times take to mean fundamental to civilization, being deem as recognized pillar of society as well as culture, and the history of societal conflict might be realized in the history of early right as well as its creation. According to the case of Banton and Hardie, it is apparent that the lawful right of Mr. Banton is not given since, under this theory, every worker is entitled to legal right at, social right place of work as well as moral rules. Mr. Banton isn’t given any. The Hardie is ethically wrong as far as the right theory is concerned and consequently, the company needs to ensure that right of workers both as per the law and the society right need to observed by the company at all times in ensuring that the right of a person is of concern (Martin 2011). The compensation finance from James Hurdle to comply with the requirements of the victims in Australia was grossly insufficient as well as the company had broken a promise on a vow that the assets transferred to the Netherlands might still be existing to claimants. Normative Ethical Normative ethics is a research on ethical actions. It tries to study the set of questions of ethical consideration the manner in which one must act, ethically. Normative ethics is different from meta-ethics since it studies standards for the correctness as well as injustice of actions, whilst meta-ethic researches the meaning of ethical language. Normative ethics is an empirical research of individual’s moral attitude. Descriptive ethics might be related with establishing what percentage of individual believes that killing is not right whilst normative ethics focus on whether it’s right to hold such an attitude. As a result, normative ethics is considered as regulatory, instead of expressive (Patricia Werhane 2013). From the case analysis, it can be observed that the company didn’t ethically right since, the safety of the workers isn’t secure as well as the fund set for compensation of asbestos victims isn’t guaranteed as much as the company policy clear states that it focuses on upholding high standards of code of conduct, safety of workers as well as an assurance to fully compensation to asbestos victims. In this regards, the company isn’t acting morally right. Non compliance of normative this would lead to poor ethical consideration in a manner that a company or a person must act ethically (Kline 2010). The company had breach their duty of acting with care and diligence. The James Hardie code of conduct as well as ethics commands workers to never discuss JH with the media unless one is clearly permitted to do so by investor relation (P.14). inspire, the Hardie board members deprived under the on oath statement to the supreme court, that the main documents of the case, the press release signed by Greg Baxter who is the senior Vice president corporate affairs concerning compensation of asbestos , it was not approved by the members of the board. The annual report for James Hardie provided that the company is committed to upholding the highest standards of ethical behavior as well as the code of ethics that commands workers to adhere to the spirit of and also the letter of entire laws and other statutory requirements. All this issues identified in the case of Mr. Bennie Banton and Hardie simply concludes to lack of ethics in the company as well as non compliance of company safety and code of conduct together with poor compliance regulatory frameworks set by the law to govern the safety of workers. Reference list Boggio, DA 2013, Compensating Asbestos Victims: Law and the Dark Side o. Bowie, NE 1999, Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective. Butler, C 2008, Human Rights Ethics: A Rational Approach - Page 163. Cliff Roberson, ‎M 2009, Ethics for Criminal Justice Professionals - Page 6. Goodenough, PL 2008, Ethical Leadership, Values Congruence, and Work Place. Gordon, J-S 2009, Morality and Justice: Reading Boylan's 'A Just Society. Helen Anne Molesworth, ‎DA‎B-W 2003, Work Ethic. Kline, J 2010, Ethics for International Business: Decision-Making. Malachowski, AR 2001, Business Ethics: Critical Perspectives on Business. Martin, G 2011, Human Values and Ethics in the Workplace - Page 128. Patricia Werhane, ‎ES 2013, Business Ethics in Theory and Practice: Contributions. Weiss, JW 2914, Business Ethics: A Stakeholder and Issues Management Appoach. Read More

The Utilitarianism The theory is in normative ethics in which the best ethical actions are the one that capitalize utility. Utility is linked to wellbeing of sentient entity. Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the best moral action is the one that maximizes utility. Utility is defined in various ways, but is usually related to the well. Utilitarianism is therefore a form of substantial is that states the the impact of any action are the standards of right as well as wrong.

This perception might be contrasted with virtue ethics that holds virtue as an ethical good. The intent is morally significant. Utilitarianism is definitely dissimilar from other forms of consequentialism like the egoism as it deem every interest same (Cliff Roberson 2009). The ethics issues in the Banton/Hardie as far as Utilitarianism is that the best ethical action wasn’t done that will maximize utility. It can be observed that Mr. Banton was not given the maximize satisfaction by Hardie by ensuring that safety standards at place of work is provided and fully complied as well as the compensation to asbestos victims isn’t fully guaranteed by the company.

It is apparent that Hardie is transferring cash to parent company in Netherlands inform of asset which cannot be claimed by Australian government due to the fact that there isn’t treaty entered into between Australia and Netherlands. In this regards, the assets were lawfully protected from claims for compensation from asbestos victims in Australia like Mr. Banton. The compensation finance from James Hurdle to comply with the requirements of the victims in Australia was grossly insufficient as well as the company had broken a promise on a vow that the assets transferred to the Netherlands might site be existing to claimants.

The reasons for creating apparent company yin Netherlands together with lawful maneuvers had been to save the company’s cash by take away the right of the asbestos legal compensation which is ethically reprehensible (Goodenough 2008). It can therefore be concluded that utilitarianism requires companies to ensure that there the best ethical actions is the one that capitalize utility. Utility is linked to wellbeing of sentient entity. Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the best moral action is the one that maximizes utility in which it isn’t being observed by Hardie (Gordon 2009).

Kantian deontology The hypothesis of deontology provides that we are ethically committed to act in compliance with specific set of rules inspire of the result. In religious deontology, the principles derived from celestial rules so that under the religious law, we are ethically committed not to steal, deceive or recline. The theory holds that some actions in deontology are judged independent of their results. An act might be ethically bad but might accidentally lead to ideal results (Gordon 2009).

From the case study, it can be observed that Hardie is not committed to their result which stated that the company is committed to upholding the highest standards of ethical behavior as well as the code of ethics that commands workers to adhere to the spirit of and also the letter of entire laws and other statutory requirements which in reality was not committed. The James Hardie code of conduct as well as ethics command workers to never discuss JH with the media unless one is clearly permitted to do so by investor relation (P.14). inspire, the Hardie board members deprived under the on oath statement to the supreme court, that the main documents of the case, the press release signed by Greg Baxter who is the senior Vice president corporate affairs concerning compensation of asbestos , it was not approved by the members of the board (Helen Anne Molesworth 2003).

The Supreme Court turned down the statement as well as held that board members need to approve the press release disgustingly under estimating the value of compensation. It can therefore be concluded that Hardie isn’t committed to their rules and rugalation as set such as maintaining the highest safety standards as well as full compensation to assessor’s victims.

Read More