Decide which side of the argument you find yourself, and set forth your position; and please describe why you advocate for that position
The Acme case scenario is a reflection of the fundamentally flawed corporate form of business organization whose motivation is profitability above all else. The situation stems from fundamental assumptions of human morality, ethics and business, and false assumptions. Consequently, mainstream discussions on the subject are dominated by arguments of “who is the sovereign” between business corporations and people. Is loss of a single life justifiable if it leads to generation of millions of dollars in profit for the corporation in question? Evidently, no, human life cannot be perceived as collateral damage in advancing organizational profitability, whatever the circumstances. Therefore, Acme intent to omit adding the safety hinge to the cover of its new toy box product, despite statistics showing that the omission can cause at least three deaths annually, reeks of corporate greed. Morality and business ethics dictate that such a strategy should not be sanctioned.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
2. Identify, explain, and discuss what you believe to be the two strongest arguments for your side
It is worth revisiting the debate on who is sovereign between business corporations and people. Valuation of life is inexplicable even in legal circumstances where compensation for its loss is sought, implying that people reign over business corporations. Acme as a corporation has a moral and ethical obligation to protect consumers from any potential harm resulting from the use of its products, especially where factual evidence exists of the likelihood of such harm occurring. This argument is corroborated by the fact that the occurrence of three product related deaths annually can be avoided by observing safety protocols for the manufacture of toy boxes. However, Berry (n.d) argues that the societies, governments, and countries find themselves in the opposite side of the events due to the injurious effects of corruption from corporate money.
There is a wide body of literature on how corporate money is expended to successfully control elections, influence legislation, subvert officialdom, escape regulation, and avoid punishment for the harms done. According to Berry, the predicament is summarized in a 1993 manual publication by The Alliance for Justice, a group lawyers in Washington DC titled “Justice for Sale: Shortchanging the Public Interest for Private Gain.” The growth in corporate power has seen powerful groups with ideologically compatible foundations undertake multi-faceted, integrated, and comprehensive campaigns to promote profitability over social justice and individual rights on which legal processes hinge. From the case scenario, one can argue that Acme is intent on going down a similar road, which is morally, ethically, and legally wrong.
Review of the case scenario leads to the conclusion that pricing is not the only competitive strategy Acme can depend on to elevate sales of its new product. The company can employ alternative marketing strategies to achieve the same. Safety is a critical component of value customers get from using a product and when it is compromised, low prices are not enough to persuade customers into purchasing the product. Most importantly, Acme should put in place a marketing research team to explore why competitor’s products are lowly priced. It is likely that competitors are offering toy boxes without safety hinges, or have discovered on how to cut down production costs for boxes with safety hinges. If the former is established to be the case, Acme can use the opportunity to market it new product by emphasizing on safety and corroborating it with statistical evidence of the potential risk posed by use of toy boxes with unhinged tops. The assumption is that customers will be willing to pay premium prices for value added to the product. However, if the latter is the case, Acme needs to invest on innovation through research and development to develop mechanisms for cutting down production costs without compromising the product’s perceived value. Alternative marketing and competitive strategies can be crucial in avoidance of possible litigations for preventable deaths from use of the company’s new product.
Identify, explain, and discuss what you believe to be the two strongest arguments in opposition to yours.
Companies should not be blanketed under the negative influence of corporate money on the society. According to Handy (2002), complacency is for the few and judging by Acme presented scenario, the company is not among the few. First it is important to note that Acme understands the implications of its new product features on competitiveness and profitability. The company also recognizes potential legal implications of the same. However, Handy (2002) observed that markets rely on rules and laws, which depend on truth and trust. Acme can only find itself in unreliable position if it breaks existing rules and laws. Acme can market its new product based on truth by citing statistics showing the risk posed by safety deficient toy boxes. However, it is important to point out the probability of three deaths annually being outliers and can be avoided if parents or caretakers effectively monitor their children when accessing the toy box. This way, a parent buys the toy box knowing the risk it poses and measures they can employ to avoid the risk. Alternatively, it is possible to provide customers with a choice by offering the two types of toy boxes, which to some extent, will absolve the company from bearing full responsibility in the case of accidents or incidents from the use of its products.
Traditionally, the role of a business is to generate profit for its stakeholders, and questions have been raised regarding the emerging trend that emphasizes on corporate social responsibility. According to Koch (2010), examination of whether profit maximization can be defended from an ethical perspective is critical to understanding actions of some corporations. The suspicion with which profit maximization is met and its perception as amoral or immoral is unjustified. It is important to evaluate profit maximization using rule-consequentialist ethics supplemented by elements of more deontological ethical character, that emphasize on action being important than consequences (Koch, 2010). This way, Acme profitability from sale of the new product without the safety hinge can be viewed as ethical, but the company must fulfil necessary institutional and other requirements. Depending on the features of similar products offered by competitors, Acme can argue and justify its case hence avoiding serious legal repercussions from incidents that are beyond its control.
References
Berry, J. (n.d). We the people vs the business corporations - Who is the sovereign? EarthLight Magazine. Retrieved 30/8/2017from: https://www.earthlight.org/corpmoney.html.
Handy, C. (2002). What is a business for? Harvard Business Review. Retrieved 30/8/2017from: https://hbr.org/2002/12/whats-a-business-for.
Koch, C. (2010). An ethical justification of profit maximization. Society and Business Review , 5 (3), 270-280.
