The debate over GMO products and the entire impact of GMO science has elicited varied views over the years. On the one hand, some have argued that GMO products need to be used and that there is no verifiable and scientific evidence to show that they affect human beings or any ecosystem negatively. On the other hand, there has been strong opposition to the use of GMO products. However, there has as well been another school of argument that does not oppose or support the use of GMO products, instead proposing more research to ascertain the extent of effects to not only human beings, but also to the environment as well. The following essay seeks to discuss three ethical theories in relation to the marketing of the GMO product in the Frances’ case.
As one of the main theories of ethics, utilitarianism emphasizes that an action is morally acceptable based on the maximum benefits it can do to individuals in society (Brooks & Dunn, 2015). According to utilitarianism argument, a “small” harm or disservice to the society from an action is justifiable if the same action produces “large good” to a great number of people in the society. In the Frances’ case, the product that is to be marketed will yield considerable benefits to the larger number of users but at the same time lead to serious harm to some of the users as well. In this case, it would be unethical to market and sell the product to the public, knowing that a section of users will be negatively affected. In addition, it is important to emphasize that in the contemporary business world, firms are not only focusing on profit maximization but also the effect their products will have on people and the environment (Clarkson, Miller & Cross, 2014).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Categorical Imperative is another deontological theory of ethical behavior. According to categorical imperative theory, people have been called to work, perform or act, since that is imperative (Brooks & Dunn, 2015). In all of the deontological theories, there is no mention of bad or good action. In relation to Frances’ case, the application of categorical imperative theory would only require the company to go ahead and sell the product without minding its effects on the users, which is unethical. As Clarkson, Miller & Cross (2014) contend, such an action can lead to loss of reputation or profits for the company as it will receive negative publicity.
Another school of thought could be derived from the corporate social responsibility theory (Clarkson, Miller & Cross, 2014). This approach is premised on four obligations. The first obligation is the economic responsibility to create profits which is the primary objective of any business. Indeed, for any business to survive, there has to profit failure to which there will be no business and ultimately business ethics. The second obligation is the ethical responsibility of acting right even in instances where the law does not require it. The third requirement is the philanthropic duty in a bid to use the profits made in ways that benefit the society. The fourth obligation is the adherence to rules and regulations that govern the market. In the case of Frances,’ the application of corporate responsibility theory would, therefore, deter the company from selling this product because it goes against the ethical principle. Despite the fact that the product offers substantial benefits, the company must endeavor to eliminate the effects of this product and make sure it is safe to users before releasing it to the market.
In reference to the above observation, it is clear that as the executive of GMO Seed & Feed, Inc., Frances will be morally and ethically wrong to market and sell the new GMO product. First, it would be unethical to apply utilitarianism theory by considering the maximum benefits and disregarding the negative effects to some users. Secondly, the categorical theory will not apply since the impact of the action also matters in this case. Finally, it will be prudent to use corporate responsibility theory since the action of selling the product will take into consideration the welfare of the business, environment as well as the users. Therefore, the company needs to do more research on how to reduce or eliminate the adverse effects of the GMO product before selling it.
References
Brooks, L. J., & Dunn, P. (2015). Business & professional ethics for directors, executives &
Accountants. Hoboken, N.J., Wiley.
Clarkson, K., Miller, R., & Cross, F. (2014). Business Law: Texts and Cases . Nelson Education.
Hurley, P. (2011). Beyond consequentialism . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
