Organizational Ethics in the Manufacturing Industry - Case Study Example

Grappling with Ethical Issue in a Plastic Manufacturing Organization Introduction The issue of ethics is a product of many years of examining how people should live their lives. The impact is more felt in modern business organizations which in the wake of increased competition seek to adopt novel technologies whose consequences could make them considered being ignorant of ethics. Pojman and Fieser (2012) refer to ethics as a branch of philosophy dealing with how people ought to live, incorporating the idea of good and concepts like right and wrong. Being a philosophical issue, it entails construction and analysis of rational arguments. Furthermore, organizational ethics could either be individual reflecting individualistic approach to issues of moral responsibility or communal where members of an organization would be viewed in light of the community in which they exist (Brown, 2014). With my interest in the field of plastic molding and manufacturing, I seek to analyze ethical issues that impact plastic molding and manufacturing organizations and the factors that shape such issues. The appropriate ethical frameworks will guide in providing my personal ethical response that could be adopted by such organizations so as to be considered as being ethical. Therefore, plastic manufacturing firms face varied ethical issues contributed by various factors, hence the need for such firms to adopt measures that would portray them as being ethical. Ethical Issue in Plastic Molding and Manufacturing Organizational ethics in the manufacturing industry entails duties of the given organization to ensure that the end products and the production processes cause no needless harm. Just a few goods and services could be produced and consumed without any risk thus the challenge in determining the ethical course. However, most of the times, consumers would demand products that would cause harm (Freinkel, 2011). The incorporation of technology in the production process, away from the traditional approaches has propagated harm in manufacturing processes. Furthermore, product testing procedures have for long been criticized for violation of human and animal rights. The plastic manufacturing industry has been largely criticized for its unethical practices. Social issues have been cited as a major factor on the ethical issue in plastic manufacturing. The manufacturing process uses a lot of fossil fuels which have been noted to emit chemicals that negatively affect the environment. Plastic products have also been noted to be a safety hazard to humans, particularly to children (Freinkel, 2011). Perhaps, one could argue that people need to take care of their children and not allow them to be exposed to conditions that could hamper their safety. Even so, for manufacturers to produce products that they are aware pose safety threats to people is unethical. Pojman and Fieser support this argument by noting that “some aspects of morality are not covered by law” but are generally considered to be unethical (2012, 4). Thus, this conflict of social expectations and the effect of plastic manufacturing and presence of the end products in the environment raise ethical issues in plastic manufacturing. Economically, plastic products have been criticized for causing much more negative impact than the effort that goes into correcting or reversing the menace. Despite creating a lot of employment opportunities and generating revenue for the respective governments, it has been evidence that plastic materials lead to environmental degradation. Plastic products could be made from chemicals such as polyethylene terephthalate, PET which are melted in the injection molds, then converted to pre-forms. These would then be reheated and stretched or blow molded before being shaped into the required products. Their production is fast and cheap, with Freinkel (2011) noting that about 10,600 plastic bottles could be produced in an hour. Due to this ease of production, plastic products are common and less care is taken in their disposal. The piling up of plastics in the environment has resulted in drainage systems blocking and arable land being rendered unusable. With the consequence of plastic manufacturing being significantly higher than the resultant benefit, ethical issues abound. Finally, there have been cases of business factors promoting ethical issues in plastic manufacturing firms. Here, big manufacturers would take advantage of some of their connections within the government or legal loopholes to execute wrongful activities to their advantage. Such connections could allow the use of hazardous materials or acquiring raw materials through illegal means. Freinkel (2011) observes that a majority of companies prefer manufacturing their plastic products in countries such as China due to cheap labor and less restrictive legislation that allows the production and distribution of potentially hazardous plastic products. For example, PVC, a component of plastic with its known carcinogenic effects on humans would still be used to produce plastics. Even the scientific tests that legislators rely on take unreasonably long to be done, thus delaying legislation to have proper laws passed. Such laws that fail to resolve conflicts and promote social harmony have been noted by Pojman and Fieser (2012) to be unethical. Indeed, laws could be immoral even with the consideration of their legal authority. Ethical Framework Cultures greatly differ such that even on obvious issues, diversity causes morality to be perceived differently (Bartol, Canney, Cunningham, Flaherty & McNamee, 2011). Therefore, it would be important to appreciate the non-existence of a universal approach in deciding the ethical acceptability of an issue. As such, ethical frameworks would be applied in evaluating the ethical issue regarding plastic manufacturing industry as discussed in this paper. Virtue theory is normative, thus guide on making decisions on ethical behaviors. Unlike other normative frameworks seeking to give response to what is right or wrong, Pojman and Fieser (2012) argue that virtue theory seeks to respond to the question of how to be a good person. As such, this theory postulates critical virtues that an individual or an organization should possess for consideration as being ethical. One of the widely observed virtues whose lack could cause one to be considered as being unethical is phronesis, the practical or moral wisdom (Bazerman & Tenbrunsel, 2011). In the plastic manufacturing industry, use of fossil fuels would promote environmental pollution. Thus, such firms should have phronesis that encourages adoption of processes that do not consume fossil fuels so as to conserve the environment. Renewable energy sources like geothermal power could save such firms from the criticism of being unethical in their manufacturing processes. Another framework that could be useful in evaluating ethical issues in plastic manufacturing industry is the deontological or duty-based ethics. This framework argues for the right being independent from the good or the right having priority over the good. This framework intrinsically considers actions as being right or wrong regardless of the consequences (Pojman & Fieser, 2012). Kant provides a critical way in which to determine the morality of activities of plastic manufacturing firms. First, there is a requirement to act on those maxims considered as universal laws. Therefore, by producing products that are not environmentally friendly, plastic manufacturers fail to protect what is universally expected of them, thus moral wrong. Secondly, they fail to uphold human dignity, that is, they fail to act on the maxims which treat humans as an end but rather as a means, through adopting environmentally polluting processes. Thus, Kant’s deontology indicates that plastic manufacturing firms are unethical. This could be resolved if such firms would adopt processes that do not interfere with the ecosystem, allowing humans to live in a dignified environment. Additionally, by using raw materials that have enhanced biodegradability, such firms would appeal universally. Personal Ethical Response Completely eliminating plastic products could be a futile battle to fight. It would be difficult to pass laws that completely eliminate plastics from use (Freinkel, 2011). Thus, my proposition would be that plastic manufacturing companies come out more transparent on the chemicals or components used to manufacture their products. This will enable the identification of the harmful components and measures towards eliminating or substituting the use of such materials be adopted. Furthermore, it would be critical to encourage such manufacturers to use polymers that are environmentally friendly so as to meet the needs of all stakeholders. In fact, the normal materials used to manufacture plastic materials could be treated with special accelerants that cause degradation of such products at the end of life-cycle, causing them to break down within a shorter period (BBC, 2014). Finally, plastic manufacturers could actively engage in corporate social responsibility where they educate communities on proper disposal of plastic materials. This would reduce the amount of plastics polluting the environment. It could also be an opportunity to educate societies on the dangers of plastic bags and the associated safety risks, especially with regards to children using them for playing. Recycling plastic materials has been noted to be a challenge because of the cumbersome process of sorting, cleaning and chemically breaking down the collected plastics before recycling (Freinkel, 2011). This process discourages many firms from recycling plastics. It would be more beneficial and practical if plastic manufacturers based on their expertise in plastic manufacturing, led in efforts to recycle plastics from the environment. This would help in cleaning up the environment and thus reduce the plastic menace in the society. Thus, modern plastic manufacturing firms should embrace morality as a critical issue for their survival. With Pojman and Fieser (2012) appreciating ethical behavior as an extension of organizational culture, such firms should seek to incorporate ethical guidelines in their practice. In their code of ethics, these firms could include rules that would cause employees to treat the community from where they operate with dignity. This could involve mandatory participation of all employees in the corporate social responsibility initiatives by the organization. Furthermore, the executives of such an organization could receive training on how to foster ethical standards in the organization. This would ensure that all processes, from procurement of raw materials to the distribution of final products, pay attention to the community. Finally, such firms could also make advice on ethical situations readily available to its employees. This way, these employees would make ethical decisions more often than not. Conclusion Business organizations are indeed social entities that impact on human lives and the natural environments in which they operate. Such impact is what has caused plastic manufacturing firms encounter ethical issues. Despite the economic benefit of this industry, associated social, economic and business factors have been noted to cause ethical issues in the industry. These manufacturers have been noted to produce harmful products with regards to environmental conservation and human safety. Such dilemmas cast the weight on organizations to make choices that promote the common good. It could be impractical to have laws against bad intention but such intentions would still be considered as morally wrong. Thus, plastic manufacturing firms should reveal the materials used in their products and seek to make use of environmentally friendly materials and further engage in corporate social responsibility initiatives where they educate communities on proper ways to live with plastics. This way, such industries would be accepted by the society as ethical because of seeking to promote the common good. References Bartol, D., Canney, J., Cunningham, J., Flaherty, S. & McNamee, L. (2011). Marketing of bottled water: Business and ethical issues. Rivier Academic Journal, 7 (1). Retrieved 22 March 2014 from http://www.rivier.edu/ Bazerman, M. H. & Tenbrunsel, A. E. (2011). Ethical breakdowns. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved 22 March 2014 from http://hbr.org/ BBC. (2014). Plastic pots. Is there an ethical alternative? Retrieved 22 March 2014 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ Brown, M. (2014). Ethics in organizations. Retrieved 22 March 2014 from http://www.scu.edu/ Freinkel, S. (2011). Plastic: A toxic love story. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Pojman, L. P. & Fieser, J. (2012). Ethics: Discovering right and wrong (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth. Read More