The Bernie Banton and Jasmes Hardie - Case Study Example

BERNIE BANTON AND JAMES HARDIE CASE By (Name) Course Professor’s name University name City, State Date of submission Bernie Banton and James Hardie case Introduction The James Hardie Company majored in the mining of Asbestos products. Asbesto products when wrongly handled can results in health problems notably mesothelioma and lung cancer. Despite understanding the risks of this product, James Hardie did not take any measures to provide health security measures to his employees. Bernie Banton, an employee at the mine, was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He later succumbed because of the disease. His death led to a lot of uproar among the employees with most of them demanding justice. Both citizens and employees agreed in unison that James Hardie was not acting ethically since both groups had been affected negatively by the asbestos products. A case was filed in regards to the death of Bernie Banton. James Hardie was charged with exposing his employees to the deadly asbestos and refusal of not fully compensating the victims. Typically, ethics refers to the accepted code of behavior or conduct (Fernando 2016). There have been a lot of concerns that has been raised regarding the ethical behavior of the James Hardie Mining Company, with most people feeling that he failed to address ethical concerns of its employees. It was perceived to deprive its employees of a just and fair compensation which was suffering from the life-threatening asbestos injuries. This essay seeks to look into the ethical issues presented in the Bernie Banton and James Hardie case. Furthermore, the paper will examine the ethical theories in relation to case. There are several theories brought forth by different scholars that give further understanding of ethical concepts and issues. The theories that will be discussed in this essay include the Utilitarianism theory, the Kantian deontology theory, Rights theory, Justice Theory as well as the challenge of normative ethical relativism. Besides giving a brief overview of the theories a practical scenario of the theories will be provided based on the Bernie Banton and James Hardie case. In the Bernie Banton and James Hardie case, the main ethical issues that arise include; Act of negligence, despite having the knowledge that Asbestos is harmful to the health. The company did not provide safety measures to protect its employees from the deadly asbestos products. Unfair and unjust compensation of its employees who are ailing from Asbestos related illness. Most probably, the ailments are as a result of their work in the company. It is an act of negligence for not taking responsibility for their actions. Another ethical concern is its failed corporate responsibility to the community. Typically, it is prudent for an organization or a company to ensure the well-being of its surrounding, however, this was not the case for James Hardie. For instance, more than ten thousand employees have succumbed due to ailments caused by Asbestos. This clearly shows their negligence of not taking any responsibility for preventing or finding a solution on how to manage the deadly Asbestos mines. Another instance that shows there failure to provide corporate responsibility was in 2001 when its board of directors tried to come up with a plan to escape from the massive liabilities. Most of the company’s resources were stripped and taken to a new holding in Netherlands. They were running away from being legally liable for its ailing employees. To evade full compensation of the victims, they claimed that the operation was fully funded. It is no doubt that ethics management and corporate responsibility play a significant role in enhancing the public image of an organization. A company’s reputation can build or destroy it. Ethics are the values and principles that govern the operations of the organization (Fernando 2016). It is prudent that a company maintain the set ethics with all its stakeholders from its employees, the community, suppliers, and shareholders. The management needs to act ethically to its employees by ensuring their needs well are looked into. Employees are usually the brand ambassadors of an organization; their review of their organization plays a substantial role in enhancing the success of the organization. Therefore, their safety and health concerns must be accorded with priority. For the case of the James Hardie Company, they were not ethical to their employees because they did not effectively look into their health and safety concerns (Fernando 2016). They made their employees work in the deadly asbestos without proper safety equipment. Consequently, an organization needs to act ethically to its surrounding community. Similarly, this was not achieved by the company as they failed to provide the needed corporate responsibility to the community. They failed to full responsibility for the many lives affected by the products of asbestos. Acting ethically is essential as it has many benefits to the organization. One is that it improves the morale of the employees. Employee’s productivity increases when they feel they are treated right, and their needs are well looked into. Increased employee productivity consequently results in improved financial benefits as well as improved efficiency and effectiveness of the organization. Furthermore, the rate of employee turnover will reduce and thus saving on the costs that could have been incurred in replacing employees. It is, therefore, clear that acting ethically through the ethical theory enhances the integrity, honesty, and accountability. Ethical theories The Utilitarianism theory The utilitarianism theory upholds that the best moral behavior or action is an action that maximizes utility. Under this theory utility is considered as the wellness of conscious entities. The theory was founded by Jeremy Bentham, who defined ethics as the pleasure obtained after get rid of the suffering involved in behavior or actions (Fernando 2016). Typically, people need to ensure that their ethical decisions positively influence others. Same applies to organizations. Despite the many critics of this theory, I feel that the theory provides a preferable and simpler way to make an ethical decision as compared to other theories. Jeremy sets out the principle “Do good, reduce pain, harm not, advocate for justice, encourage happiness, respect people as well as their freedom” (Melé & Universidad de Navarra 2012). When all these are observed there will be minimal ethical issues. They bring rationality into people’s ethical decisions. In the case of James Hardie case, they did not do well to their employees and their community. They inflicted pain and practiced injustice. They also did not respect their employees and give those rights and freedom. It is thus clear that they did not encourage any happiness instead they acted unethically. They did not practice justice because at some point refused to compensate their victims fully. They inflicted pain and suffering since many people suffered from cancerous diseases brought about the asbestos (Australia 2003). Some of the ailing persons succumbed to death due to the diseases. For instance, Bernie Banton dies of mesothelioma which is caused by the asbestos such cases caused pain and suffering to the victim’s families. Consequently, the rights and freedom of the employees were taken for granted; every employee has a right to a safe and healthy work environment. However, this was compromised in the case of James Hardie Company; the employees did not have the effective equipment to protect them from the harmful dust of asbestos. Moreover, the well-being of the surrounding community was at stake. The dust emitted from the company contained particles of asbestos which whirled up in the atmosphere when the dust is inhaled by people continuous result into cancerous diseases such as lung cancer and mesothelioma (Miners Federation 2003). A lot of people were diagnosed with asbestos-related ailments. It is estimated that more than ten thousand people have succumbed due to asbestos in Australia and more than forty thousand around the world. This shows the deadly nature of the mine. There is a strong, therefore, to ensure that mining of asbestos is done in the most effective way taking into account all preventive measures to avoid its deadly side but only gain from its useful side. Kantian deontology theory This theory is also known as the deontological ethics. It upholds the normal ethical ideology that judges the morality of behavior based on the actions or behavior’s adherence to set rules and regulations. It is a moral action induced by regulation or a rule of law (Melé & Universidad de Navarra 2012). In the case of Banton and James Hardie case, the James Hardie Company was required to be responsible for their actions (De 2011). They were demanded to compensate the family of Banton because his death was as a result of asbestos inhalation from his place of work. Under the Australian law, if an employee succumbs to death as a result of their work, the company needs to take full liability and compensate the victim. The company had to compensate the family. Consequently, there were many other victims of the community with similar cases and had to be compensated. However, the company failed to make full compensations to some victims claiming that all the compensations will be fully funded. It can also be argued from another perspective that the company might have failed to make full compensation due to a financial stretch. They had incurred a lot of money in compensating, and a further contribution could overstretch the company’s resources which might in the long affect the operations of the company. This would then affect its stock market, and its investors might withdraw their stakes. Therefore, the management could have been restricted to the shareholders from making compensations. Moreover, the company provided safety equipment to their employees which protected them from the harmful dust of asbestos. However, because of employee’s negligence of not adhering to the safety measures put in place could have resulted to their ailments and thus it is something they wished for. According to the law of tort the company needs not to take responsibility for self-inflicted ailments and therefore, this could have been a reason the company failed to compensate the victims. Justice (including Rawls and Nozick) Justice simply implies the act of fairness or honesty. Two theories have been brought forth to enunciate justice ethics. They include the theory of justice by John Rawls and ‘Anarchy, Utopia and state’ theory by Robert Nozick (Webster 2005). John bases his theory on two principles which include the liberty principles where every person is entitled to basic liberties such as the right to vote, freedom of religion and freedom of speech (International Metalworkers' Federation 2000). The difference principle is the second principle which states that inequalities can only be condoned if it will uphold the welfare of the least fortunate (Peacock & Australian Broadcasting Corporation 2009). In the case of the James Hardie, it can be argued that there were aspects of justice to some extent. For example, some of the victims were compensated. That showed an act of justice. To the victims that were not compensated that was an injustice. Robert Nozick, on the other hand, argues that it is only a small state focused on the enforcement of the contract as well as protecting individuals against crimes such as fraud, assault, or robbery can be morally justified (Melé & Universidad de Navarra 2012). In the situation of James Hardie case, there will be total justice if all the victims are fully compensated, their litigation expenses paid medical bills paid and brought their lives to normal as they were before the ailment. It is clear that all the victims have not been fully compensated, and, therefore, justice has not been found for them. Furthermore, the problem should not have happened in the first place if they were focused on corporate social responsibility. Rights Typically, rights are permissions or entitlements which are of moral or legal nature (Melé & Universidad de Navarra 2012). Rights play a vital role in depicting how we conduct our lives around. The primary human rights include the right to speech, right to religion and the right to vote (Teicher & Gough 2013). Employees also have rights that are outlined in the constitution under the employees act. One of the provisions of the act is that employees must be accorded a safe and conducive working environment (The bulletin 2000). This part of the Act was breached by James Hardie since he did not provide a safe and working environment for his employees. He should have provided equipment that prevents inhalation of the asbestos dust. Every employee needs to be compensated when they get injured while on duty. However, James Hardie did not fully compensate his employees who suffered from diseases caused by asbestos. It was prudent and ethical for him to compensate the victims. The challenge of normative ethical relativism This is an ethical theory that claims that there are no morals that are universally valid. It argues that the badness or goodness of behavior or action differ from one society to another (Melé & Universidad de Navarra 2012). Also, it states that different cultures have divergent perceptions of different situations and events. It is just ethical principles are a reflection of what is held moral by a particular culture. This theory has faced a lot of criticism from other scholars claiming that there are some moral values that are universally acceptable. During the hearing of the James Hardie case, a lot of interventions were brought up that related to this theory. Some people felt that the victims should not be compensated because the ailment was as a result of their negligence. They chose to work for the company and made an agreement during employment that they are comfortable working in the environment and be ready to accept all that entails the job position. Moreover, they should have resigned after seeing other victims suffer from ailments resulted from their work environment. While other people felt it was an act of negligence from James Hardie, who should have provided the best working environment for its employees. Conclusion In conclusion, it is clear from the discussion that ethics plays a significant role in dictating the success of the organization. James Hardy did not exercise organizational ethics. Act of negligence, despite having the knowledge that Asbestos is harmful to the health. There were a number of ethical concerns that were raised concerning the management of the James Hardy Company. As highlighted above the main ethical issues that aroused from the case included: unfair and unjust compensation of its employees who are ailing from Asbestos related illness. Failing to provide corporate responsibility to the community was also an act of unethical behavior. Failure of exercising ethics negatively affected the company. They were sued and made to compensate all the victims that were affected by asbestos. Ethical theories have also been discussed in the essay. The theories discussed included the; the utilitarianism theory which upholds that the best moral behavior or action is an action that maximizes utility. In the case of James Hardey they inflicted pain and practiced injustice. They also did not respect their employees and give those rights and freedom. The kantiology theory, upholds the normal ethical ideology that judges the morality of behavior based on the actions or behavior’s adherence to set rules and regulations. Another theory discussed is the justice theory. It primarily implied the act of fairness or honesty. Two theories have been brought forth to enunciate justice ethics included the theory of justice by John Rawls and ‘Anarchy, Utopia and state’ theory by Robert Nozick. Finally, the aspect of human rights has also been discussed. Normally, employees have rights that are outlined in the constitution under the employees act. One of the provisions of the act is that employees must be accorded a safe and conducive working environment. This part of the Act was breached by James Hardie since he did not provide a safe and working environment for his employees. It can therefore, be concluded that James Hardey failed to act ethically to both his employees and its citizens. Bibliography Fernando, M. (2016). Leading responsibly in the Asian century. Melé, D., & Universidad de Navarra. (2012). Management Ethics: Placing ethics at the core of good management. Basingstoke, Hampshire [England: Palgrave Macmillan. Peacock, M., & Australian Broadcasting Corporation. (2009). Killer company. Sydney: ABC Books, Harpercollins Publishers Australia. International Metalworkers' Federation. (2000). Metal world: The quarterly magazine of the International Metalworkers' Federation. Geneva: International Metalworkers' Federation. Miners Federation (Australia). (2003). Common cause. Sydney. Webster, P. (2005). White dust black death: The tragedy of asbestos mining at Baryulgil. Victoria, B.C: Trafford. Australia. (2003). Parliamentary debates (Hansard). Canberra: Commonwealth Government Printer. De, J. A. (2011). Transnational Corporations and International Law: Accountability in the Global Business Environment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub. Teicher, J., Holland, P., & Gough, R. (2013). Australian workplace relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The bulletin. (2000). Sydney: J. Haynes and J.F. Archibald. Read More