Sustainable Environment For The Future

NP5. In 1993, two children were accidentally killed by a faulty discontinued portable crib designed and sold by Kolcraft Enterprises. 6. The CEO of the family-owned company received a letter from the Consumer Products Safety Commission requesting information from Kolcraft about the design and testing of the Travel-Lite crib in order to determine if a defect was present in the product and if the defect rises to the level of a substantial risk of injury to children as well as alerting him to the deaths of children. (Boatright, 2017). 7. Kolcraft followed this with a series of poor decisions regarding improper testing of the product that led to lawsuits as well as led to the deaths of three more infants. 8. Kolcraft’s slow reaction to respond, the lax safety and testing standards and the poor consumer communication regarding the recall notices it is ethically as well as legally justifiable to hold Kolcraft and Hasbro responsible for the deaths of six children.

Identifying Moral Culpability – Doctor Laura’s Three Prerequisites

NP9. First, it is important to identify the moral culpability of the main actors in this situation. 9. Kolcraft Enterprises and Hasbro both had direct involvement in causing the ethical situation. 10. Applying Doctor Laura’s Three prerequisites applies in this circumstance. 11. The three prerequisites are defined by general respect for life of members of your society, general respect for property whether held individually or universally, and general respect for truthfulness which encompasses some form of functionality. 12. Culpability is clearly displayed when applying the foundation of the situation at hand, as executives at Kolcraft Enterprises and Hasbro had:

· 13. Knowledge of the issue, in the form of a direct letter from the Consumer Products Safety Commission

· 14. The general right for truthfulness about the product, as they failed to perform any tests in accordance to the law that the Travel-Lite crib was safe.

· 15. Kolcraft controlled the quality assurance laboratory, supply, and distribution of the product, as well as the execution of the recall.

· 16. Kolcraft held a substantial financial stake in the situation, due to the possibility of lawsuits and lost sales from a damaged reputation.

17. Additionally it is evident both corporations met all the prerequisites for moral culpability in this case, and had a duty to act in some way to correct the seriousness of the situation brought on by the defective product.

Moral Imagination and Moral Courage

NP18. Moral imagination envisions ranges of possibilities in a particular situation. 19. Moral courage resonates on being ethical and successful by envisioning new and creative alternatives. 20. In other words, can people look beyond the dollars-and-cents impact of a decision to see how it affects others? (Ethics Unwrapped). 21. The moral-ness of a situation requires the ability to perceive ethical truths while abiding law in the midst of difficult experiences. 22. Moral obligation was not present in the current case study of the travel-lite crib. 23. Kolcraft and Hasbro had a moral obligation to test the product but failed to do so stating as their reason, “No government standards were applicable to the travel-lite crib.” (Boatright, 2017). 24. Hasbro did not question this but simply accepted this without any basis to back the claim made by Kolcraft. 25. The product sold poorly and during that time the CSPS notified Kolcraft and Hasbro that three children had died due to product defaults. 26. Kolcraft Enterprises proposed sending a notice to retailers notifying them of the dangers but the notifications were very weak in the getting the message out to consumers as an additional three more children perished due to the defaults where those parents were not aware of an recall on the product. 27. Their responsibility regarding the deaths could have been significantly reduced had the company been more proactive in getting the information out to the general public on the safety issues regarding the product. 28. The ability to implement more effective solutions, however, also requires moral courage to be upfront with their retailers and customers in the fact that they could have offered a discount for a new product provided they return the defective one. 29. This would have ensured they got the defective product back as well as not had the additional three children perish due to the defectiveness of the product. (Jones, 2009). 30. While Kolcraft and Hasbro made an effort in looking like both corporations were making an effort to recall their products and inform consumers of the danger only 2,736 responded to the meek $60 refund offered. 31. Their response in this situation truly lacked any real form of vigorousness as well as persuasion in informing the customers who purchased the product to bring it back due to the recall. 32. The carelessness they showed in getting the information out to the public is what led to further lawsuits, damage to the company name and the deaths of three innocent children as well as the loss the families can’t replace. 33. All of this could have been prevented or curtailed by the application of multiple ethical theories, such as:

Kantianism

NP34. Kantianism is the theory, developed as a result of Enlightenment rationalism, is based on the view that the only intrinsically good thing is a good will; an action can only be good if its maxim—the principle behind it—is duty to the moral law (Kantian, 2006). 35. The basis of the construct is that moral law is the categorical imperative, which acts on all people, regardless of their interests or desires. 36. The principle of universalizability does require that, for an action to be permissible, it must be possible to apply it to all people without a contradiction occurring. 37. Hasbro and Kolcraft did not go above and beyond in having the word get out as they merely did the bare minimum. 38. In advocating the bare minimum only 2,736 responded when a larger majority of the Travel-lite crib had been sold. 39. The company seemed to desire saving the face of the company more than pulling back a product known to be incredibly dangerous. 40. Their interests simply put in the wrong place. 41. The actions put forward by the company seemed to contradict the seriousness of the situation. 42. The basis of doing a good deed in providing as much energy needed to make sure everyone who owned the travel-lite crib was simply not there. 43. Even self-centered ethical theories may have difficulty in justifying the behavior put forth in this circumstance.

Virtue Ethics

NP44. Virtuous ethics is one of the approaches in normative ethics. 45. This can be identified in the virtues of moral character with contrast to the approach that emphasizes duties or rules that emphasize the consequences of actions. 46. In this case regarding Kolcraft and Hasbro, their actions do not comply specifically with what one could construe as the virtues of moral character. 47. Both companies seemed more concerned with the face value of their own company as well as not having this safety recall cost the company a substantial amount of money. 48. A utilitarian will point to the fact that the consequences of doing so will maximize well-being, a deontologist to the fact that, in doing so the agent will be acting in accordance with a moral rule such as “Do unto others as you would be done by” and a virtue ethicist to the fact that helping the person would be charitable or benevolent (Virtue Ethics). 49. If the CEO of Kolcraft was aware of the recall and owned this particular product he would want to know right away for the safety of his own child yet he chose to not go above and beyond to notify others who owned this particular product by choosing to do the bare minimum. 50. This was the direct reasoning on why there more deaths happened that clearly could have been prevented had he acted more virtuous in his approach emphasizing how dangerous this product was instead of trying to save face value for the company. 51. In business there are many ways this could have been handled to benefit all while still benefiting the company.

Carroll’s Pyramid of Corporate Social Resposibility

NP52. In terms of explaining the behavior of both companies you would have to look at the moral aspect of their behavior. 53. Carroll’s pyramid of Corporate social responsibility break this down into 4 components of responsibility which are as follows:

· 54. Economic – For the business to survive on a long-term basis and benefit the society, the first responsibility of the company is to gain profits.

· 55. Legal – It is imperative for the company to obey and adhere to the laws and regulations related to the nature of its business, competition, employment, and health and safety among others.

· 56. Ethical – It is important for the company to act on the grounds of ethics and morals in society and should also go beyond the narrow requirements of the law and order.

· 57. Philanthropic – It is the responsibility of the company to give back to society. 58. This facet of responsibility holds an important place even though it is discretionary in nature.

59. On a glance it would appear that yes they did what was needed in the moment in order for the business to survive on a long term basis, however, overall no they did not do what was needed in order to survive. 60. In every business it is imperative to always come from an ethical point which is do the right thing by going above and beyond the narrow requirements. 61. In this situation the company had a choice which was simply do the bare minimum with the “we tried” and that is enough or choice two was to save face value for the company by owning the mistake while doing whatever was necessary to make what was deemed wrong right. 62. If choice two had been implemented the company would have shown the basic respect needed to be shown to others, three deaths would have been avoided, and several lawsuits would not have taken place that cost the company far more money if they had just handled the situation with more ethical care and they could have received more face value by showing they care more about their customers than the greed for a better bottom line.

Corporate Social Responsibility/Legal Theory

NP63. By applying a Corporate Social Responsibility model, such as the Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility, one can examine the moral and legal duties a corporation has to the public beyond profit for its shareholders. 64. While the bottom line of any company is important and the first responsibility of the company is to gain profits, From a Legal standpoint, it is imperative for the company to obey and adhere to the laws and regulations related to the nature of its business, competition, employment, and health and safety among others. 65. Kolcraft Enterprises clearly did not have that in mind when they rushed this product out in hopes to attain a profit the company chose to forego the proper testing needed to ensure the product they were about to distribute was safe. 66. The company acted in such an unethical manner that it not only cost the lives of three children but an additional three children leading up to 6 deaths that clearly could have been avoided by testing the product in accordance with the law. 67. The Government had numerous regulations that applied to the production and sale of cribs, and Kolcraft Enterprises seemed to negligently ignore those requirements. 68. Hasbro, also had a duty to make sure the products it was lending its name to were safe and compliant with all federal and state laws. 69. Without legality and accountability, corporations would be free to produce unsafe products and sell them using the appeal of their branding without facing any liability. 70. The responsibility for correcting the defect falls on the executives who had assumed responsibility for corporate operations.

References

1. Boatright, John R; Smith, Jeffery D.. Ethics and the Conduct of Business. Pearson Education. Online Edition.

2. Moral Imagination. Ethics Unwrapped, Retrieved from

https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/moral-imagination

3. Defining “Moral Imagination” | Jonathan Jones. (1, July). First Things. 

https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/07/defining-moral-imagination

4. Kantian ethics. (2006, June 11). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved March 15, 2020, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantian_ethics

5. Virtue Ethics. (n.d.). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy | An encyclopedia of philosophy articles written by professional philosophers. 

https://www.iep.utm.edu/virtue/

6. Legal theory. (n.d.). TheFreeDictionary.com. 

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Legal+theory

5. What is Carroll’s Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility? (2019, March 1). Marketing91. 

https://www.marketing91.com/what-is-carrolls-pyramid-of-corporate-social-responsibility/

END OF DOC – Janessa Finley