Writing 293 and BGMT 496 Discussion reply ***Professor Anthony ONLY***

Business BGMT 496

#1

The dilemma is that Company A knows that selling Grow 2 to the Ozland will be highly effective at eradicating their pest problem and result in increased crop productions/yields which means more food for the people.  But they also know that the use of their product will increase the risk of cancer among the people, and also pose dangers to livestock. Company A has to make an ethical choice to either sell this particular pesticide to a country so they can grow food and feed it's starving population, or not sell the pesticide because its comes with potential health risks.

I think in this case the deontological theory would be the right theory to follow. The company has a highly effective product that is needed by a country that is experiencing food shortages. Failure to sell the product to the country will result in starvation (due to crop loss) and widespread suffering. Without a healthy population the country does not have the ability to grow, build and prosper. Selling the pesticide to the country will result in some cases of cancer and potential damage to live stock, but when considering the alternative, which is mass starvation, using the product will expose only a portion of the people to increased risks.

This exercise is kind of like the one we discussed in class the first week, where you had to either flip the switch on the train tracks, or throw somebody off the bridge, in order to save a larger number of people. In each case you had to make a decision on what the overall benefits would be of your actions (throw the switch, kick the guy off the bridge, or do nothing at all).

In this case I think Company A would conclude that the benefits (even with the dangers taken into account) of selling their product to Ozland, outweighs the alternative, which would result in mass starvation and continued poverty in a growing country.

In my opinion, selling the product would be a rational decision.

#2

Scenario 2 - Company A could refuse to manufactor or sell Grow2 in Ozland due to the potential hazard that Grow2 has, resulting in further growth of poverty and unstability in Ozland.

Many people do not look beyond the price tag when buying items. They don’t care or want to know how the company came about making that item, who actually makes that items, what it cost to make, the profit margin the company is making, and how it is effecting the area that the item is being manufactured.  The bottom line for most people is how much am I will to pay for it. Money is truly what make this world go around, because unfortunately we cannot function without it. I feel that the consequences question should be used to decide whether Company A should make and sell Grow2 in Ozland.

For Scenario 1, the stakeholders in Company A would be their employees, or in this case future employees, and their current shareholders. Ozland would gain valuable jobs, access to a good product that could help in food production, and growth potential when other companies see the quality of the workers that Ozland has to offer. Company A would be profit from the manufacturing and selling of Grow2 in Ozland and possible other areas, and would be helping a very deprived area flourish and hopefully be able to maintain themselves in the future.  It is a good situation all around. Basically everyone wins.

For Scenario 2, Company A takes the moral high ground and refuses to manufacture or sell Grow2 in Ozland because of the deemed hazardous effects it has on humans and livestock when exposed the this pesticide long term.  Company A could be seen as environmentally conscious, and could gain other manufacturing opportunities because of this.  Ozland will not receive any help in eliminating their poverty problem, and their food sources may continue to suffer.  Ozland loses out, but their people and livestock would not be put at any greater risk from the ill effects of the pesticide Grow2.  

As with many of the scenarios given to us, this one has some gaps that I believe would further help in an ethical decision.  Who did the studies that said Grow2 causes harm?  Was it a government agency or a rival company?  And what harm does it cause? What classifies as long term?  10 years? 20? Some might argue that any harm is unacceptable.  But this day and age the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink has the “potential” to be harmful down the road.  I believe we also have to assume that since Company A was approached by Ozland to come and manufacture in their country, they are aware of the risk and they are acceptable to them. 

I believe that Company A should proceed with the manufacturing and selling of Grow2 in Ozland because of the benefits it would have for that country.  And the bottom line of any company is to maintain a profit, and that is what we would be doing.