It is almost a common stereotype among members of the society that large profit-oriented companies, or even some charitable organizations, only prioritize profit or sales over ethical procedures in their operations. But is this true? Are there laws enforced to prevent these unethical behavior? To answer these questions, I have decided to find an example of an ethics case study while also applying to the knowledge I know previous to this research.
According to a Stanford article, in the U.S., there are government agencies, namely Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which are responsible for assessing the safety of products marketed to the consumers. There are benchmarks for a product to be allowed to be marketed while businesses could choose to impose higher than required standards.
There has been debate on who to be blamed - producers or consumers - when harms are caused to the consumers when the producers are not morally at fault. Despite that, there are 3 major compatible views:
According to a Stanford article, in the U.S., there are government agencies, namely Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which are responsible for assessing the safety of products marketed to the consumers. There are benchmarks for a product to be allowed to be marketed while businesses could choose to impose higher than required standards.
There has been debate on who to be blamed - producers or consumers - when harms are caused to the consumers when the producers are not morally at fault. Despite that, there are 3 major compatible views:
- (1) the “contract view”, according to which the manufacturer’s duty is to accurately disclose all risks associated with the product;
- (2) the “due care view”, according to which the manufacturer should exercise due care to prevent buyers from being injured by the product; and
- (3) the “social costs view”, according to which the manufacturer should pay for any injuries the product causes, even if the manufacturer has exercised due care to prevent injury and has accurately disclosed all risks associated with the product
Beyond minimizing costs, I think companies would also want to advertise themselves to prioritize safety as their number one priority as any casualties would tarnish their own brand image, as seen by the burning Samsung Note 7 case. However, faulty products always occur and they tend to create more of an issue, overlooking the fact that they have maintained most of the products' quality. Consequently, warranty or return programs are executed in order to enhance the company's ethical image.
-By William Tjen
Comments
Post a Comment