Customer Inserts name of instructor:
(28th March 2016)
Introduction
Generating profits from products made through the use of asbestos is unethical. Organizations have a responsibility to guarantee the safety of employees. Secondly, it is unethical to knowingly expose an employee to a harmful chemical. Employees have a right to a workplace environment that does not lead to safety issues. Recklessness and disregard for the safety of employees mean that corporations are only interested in profits but not the life and safety of employees. Furthermore, Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) engage in unethical practice by trying to stop victims from being compensated. My argument is that James Hardie engaged in unethical practice by exposing Bernie Banton to asbestos. Unethical practices at James Hardie industries is analyzed based on utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, justice, rights, and the challenge of normative ethical relativism. Ethical theories contain guiding principles that assist individuals and corporations to engage in ethical behaviors.
Utilitarianism
According to John Stuart Mill, moral actions are evaluated based on their effects on individuals and the society (James R. Heichelbech 2007). Effects are viewed in relation to good and bad results that arise from actions. Therefore, the purpose of a moral life is to make life better so that pleasure and happiness become part of the society. Individuals and groups should ensure that there are decreased levels of pain and unhappiness (James R. Heichelbech 2007).
In the case of Bernie Banton and James Hardie, it is clear that James Hardie Holdings engaged in unethical behavior that led to pain and unhappiness in the life of Bernie Banton. Exposure to asbestos with clear knowledge that they cause cancer is unethical. Exposure to asbestos is not justifiable as a positive contribution to pleasure and unhappiness. The government, as well as health professionals, had commissioned research with reports that exposure to asbestos causes cancer of the lungs and the heart.
Egoism as a representation of self-interests is based on the need to avoid own utility. James Hardie Industries self-interests are based on the need to maximize profits from business activities that cause cancer while neglecting the needs of the employee. Benefits to the company would involve summing up all the interests of all stakeholders. Stakeholders such as employees are exposed to health risks because of poor ventilation and use of poor work equipment.
Managers and CEOs of organizations that engage in unethical practices should be made responsible for the actions of companies. However, most directors, managers, and CEOs work for the benefit of the company. Working for the benefit of a company without considering employees and the environment is unethical. Utilitarianism is based on engaging in actions that bring happiness and common good to all stakeholders involved. Any action that isolates certain groups while inflicting pain to other is unethical.
In the market, the sale of products and competition among firms is based on the fact that lowest costs providers survive the competition. James Hardie Industries use asbestos as low-cost raw materials that guarantee survival in the market. In spite of the fact that asbestos cause cancer and harm employees, the directors of the firm challenge the legality of lawsuits to prevent Bernie Banton from compensation related claims. The suffering of employees arising from the activities leads to pain and unhappiness.
Utilitarianism demands that the decision-making process should consider all stakeholders involved in the production process. Engaging in production activities that use asbestos since the 1960s while clearly understanding the risks involved means that direct cooperate or do not bear the interest of employees and the society in mind when making decisions. When corporations consider the interest of the public and employees, harm and unethical practices can be reduced. Compensation of victims, therefore, becomes necessary, not subject to legal challenges.
Kantian Deontology
Immanuel Kant introduces the concept of duty-based ethics. Deontological or duty-based ethics is concerned about actions but not consequences of actions (White 2009). Everybody is required to do the right thing while avoiding all wrong actions. In particular, people have a duty to engage in the right actions regardless of the consequences that will be produced. According to deontologists, it is wrong to kill an innocent person. A person should engage in an action when it leads to consequences (White 2009). According to Kant, it is immoral to tell a lie to save a friend from a murderer.
Killing through conditions that lead to cancer is immoral. According to records, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) engaged in unethical behavior by protecting defendants and the board of James Hardie companies against claims of exposing employees to poor safety. ASIC is a regulation body with duty-based obligations and ethics to guarantee the well-being of the society, not just the interest of the government and the company. ASIC is required to be fair while presenting legal proceedings against persons affected by asbestos exposure at the company. In the case, ASIC engaged in unethical practice by failing to call witnesses who could provide evidence and information in the case so that James Hardie becomes responsible. In particular, ASIC is unethical by failing to seek evidence from external solicitor to James Hardie Company. The external solicitor, who had been present at board meetings, could provide accurate information on approval by the board to continue production through the use of asbestos.
Corporations also have a duty to guarantee a safe environment where employees can perform duties. The possibility of the company winding up should not outweigh the need to reduce the death of employees. The duty to stop the use of asbestos is in line with duty-based ethics that focus on reduced consequences and suffering to humanity.
According to deontologists, the question that the board of directors and managers of James Hardie should ask is that: can I approve that all persons in the society act as I propose to act? In the case, it is clear that board of directors and managers would not want all companies in Australia to expose all citizens to asbestos thereby leading to high levels of cancer. As a result, it is unethical to perform an action that cannot be approved by the majority. However, despite greed for profits and sustainability of shareholders, the board of directors made decisions to continue production of iron sheets despite the knowledge of risks involved.
Rawls and Nozick on Justice
According to Nozick, justice involves developing a sense of respect for natural rights of people. Natural rights of people in the society include the right to own property, as well as the right to self-ownership (Wei 2008). In particular, each member of the society must be given the freedom to make decisions on what they want to do with the property acquired. Furthermore, the autonomy of each individual should be respected. No person has the right to use another in a way that they cannot agree to, even when such actions are likely to cause common or greater good to the society.
In the case of James Hardie Industries, to take taxes from a company that kills employees through exposure to asbestos is unethical and unjust. Taking property in the form of taxes so that it can be distributed to the rest of Australia is unethical because it violates the rights of the employee involved in the production of taxes from James Hardie Company.
Nozick states that no person has the power to use another person in a way that they do not agree. James Hardie Company used Bernie Banton in a way that Bernie did not accept. Even though Bernie received a salary from the company, the exposure to asbestos led to cancer. No person in the society can agree to conditions that result in the development of cancer.
Rawls argues that justice is fairness. The society cooperates so that all persons achieve a mutual advantage. Besides, societies are involved in conflicts arising from differences in self-interest and shared interests that do not meet the need of all persons (Wei 2008). Justice has certain principles whereby an ideal society should distribute benefits and burdens to all member involved in social cooperation. Justice ensures that institutions meet the need of society members. Social inequalities should be eliminated so that all members of the society are not disadvantaged (Wei 2008).
Free and rational persons exercise fairness to others. In the case of James Hardie and Bernie Banton, fairness was not applied to employees exposed to asbestos. Cooperation between businesses and employees should be based on fairness so that all stakeholders involved are not disadvantaged.
The idea of a social contract should be exercised so that justice prevails. In a social contract situation, cooperation should be fair and impartial. Legal proceedings by Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) aimed at protecting the interest of James Hardie and profits generated are unethical. The interest of employee affected by cancer should be of key concern so that fairness becomes part of the society.
The actions of James Hardie are unethical because that are designed to deprive a person suffering from receiving compensation. Rejoicing in the suffering of others does not lead to fairness and the need for justice. Fair and just compensation should not be challenged in a court of law especially when the consequences of the company are clear and understood by the board of directors, the government, the society, and the court.
Rights
A right refers to privileges provided by the constitution so that employees are protected from exploitation and harm from the employer (Hunt 2010). Employees have a right to safety and fair compensation within the workplace. As a result, company executives have a duty to guarantee the rights of employees. The government, through the Corporations Act 2001, found out that company executives at James Hardie did not act with care and diligence when performing duties. Lack of care and diligence led to employees working in an unsafe environment with safety risks.
Employees also have a right to be compensated base don injuries incurred when working for the employer. Injury from asbestos manufactured products leads to cancer. According to Research and Compensation Foundation, the employee should not be exposed to risks so that they can be compensated later. Rights for members of the society and employee are products of the justice system. Rights are those we can assume will be accepted by all member of the society. In particular, rights and liberties guaranteed by the justice system should ensure equality unless conditions if inequality lead the disadvantage of society members (Hunt 2010).
A just society considers the rights and liberties of all members. In the case of James Hardie, the urge to make profits while engaging in reckless disregard for safety violates the rights and privileges of employees. Compensation given to victims of asbestos ensures that justice prevails in a society where the urge to make profits outweighs the need to be ethical. A just society provides that no unethical production means are adopted so that the larger society shares profits.
The challenge of normative ethical relativism
According to Stenmark (2014), the theory of normative ethical relativism is based on the assumption that moral principles are not universal and valid in all situations. In particular, moral actions depend on societies and cultures. In particular, no moral standard binds all human beings at all times. Morality is relative since cultures have certain values and principles that serve as the foundation for morality.
The assumption that there are no universal ethics is a reflection of the thought patterns of society members with power. Power holders in the society would want to convince the society that their actions are right despite the evidence of suffering in the lives of others. Cultures that support normative ethical relativism do not want to prevent activities that cause suffering because they lead to societal benefits. In the case of James Hardie, the government and other institutions would protect the closure of the company because of the possibility of losing out on taxes that can improve the lives of Australians. In particular, it is ethical to provide welfare services to the majority of Australians while compromising on the safety and health of employees exposed to asbestos.
Moral actions are based on the need to calculate loss and gains. In particular, there is no need to name something as ‘moral’. In certain times, murder is ethical based on the outcomes. For instance, the murder of a government critic is ethical so that the government can continue with its activities. Since moral actions are based on the calculation of loss and gains, James Hardie should be allowed to continue exposing employees to cancerous conditions while remitting taxes to the Australian government.
Conclusion
Corporations have a responsibility to guarantee the safety of the employee and the environment. Corporate governance programs that guarantee safety are necessary. Also, the need to protect the environment against exploitation and pollution ensures that there is sustainable living with the natural environment. Corporate ethics and governance programs ensure that businesses receive good will from the society. Goodwill ensures that businesses operate in the long-term without closure. As a result, human resource management practices should guarantee the safety of employees. Ethical theories should form part of decision-making process so that corporations understand the need to guarantee happiness and good for all stakeholders.
References
Hunt, I., 2010. How Egalitarian is Rawls’s Theory of Justice? Philosophical Papers, Vol. 39,
No. 2, pp.155–181.
James R. Heichelbech, 2007. Teleology and Utilitarianism. In Taylor & Francis, pp. 1189–1191.
Stenmark, M., 2014. Relativism—a Pervasive Feature of the Contemporary Western World?
Social Epistemology, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.31–43.
Wei, X., 2008. From Principle to Context: Marx versus Nozick and Rawls on Distributive
Justice. Rethinking Marxism, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.472–486.
White, M., 2009. In Defense of Deontology and Kant: A Reply to Van Staveren. Review of
Political Economy, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.299–307.
