The Ethics of Companies Selling Dangerous Products

Abstract

The paper analyzes the ethical and legal issues that face companies that sell products that are harmful or dangerous. The interpretation of the ethical and moral responsibility of a company was expanded due to the notion of strict liability. Any company would be held responsible for all the dangers that would have occurred despite the fact that they may not have had the knowledge of the dangers. Various companies have come up with ethics advisory committees that will assist them to make credible decisions. Sellers, manufacturers, and distributors have a moral and ethical responsibility to the public to predict and distribute products that are defect free. Such responsibilities are described as product liability.

Introduction

There have been various articles that have been written about business ethics especially in situations when there are distinct wrong and right decisions. However, very little literature has been written regarding ethical decisions when the issue is not a clear black and white. When a marketer is marketing a product, it is the customer’s hope that the ethical issues will not be inherent to the marketer. For instance, when the marketer is supposed to market a product that is controversial. In such a situation, the marketer is faced with a gray situation, and the decision-making process is quite difficult to make (Goodpaster, 2013). The marketer is faced with a dilemma on how to ethically market the products while making the ethical decisions. The paper will seek to analyze the ethical and legal issues that face companies that sell products that are harmful or dangerous. 

Ethical Analysis

Moral responsibility refers to the obligation, duty, and culpability of companies to produce and distribute products that are not harmful to the users. In business ethics, the company would be morally responsible for any injury that may have occurred if they were the cause, were aware of their actions, and could have put measures to stop it but they did not. Even during the traditional era, a company would have been responsible if the three factors were held constant. Nevertheless, the concept of moral responsibility has increased over the years. From the 1950s, a corporation could be held responsible for the injuries or harm that would have affected their users (Creyer, 2007). The company was then held morally responsible if they had knowledge of the dangers of their products, or was supposed to know about the harm, and could have taken preventive measures to avoid the danger. 

The interpretation of the ethical and moral responsibility of a company was expanded due to the notion of strict liability. Any company would be held responsible for all the dangers that would have occurred despite the fact that they may not have had the knowledge of the dangers. The moral responsibility affects not only the user but also the suppliers. Over the past three decades, there are companies that were morally responsible for dangers that may have occurred in the public eyes but not legally (Goodpaster, 2013). Companies that have been held responsible by the public were mainly in the electronics assembly, apparel industry and toy manufacturing have been held morally responsible for the mistakes of their suppliers when they mistreat workers or employ underage children. In some situations, these companies avoid inspection of their factories. Also, companies can be held morally responsible for the harm that would have been caused when one of their customers inflicts harm on a third party using the company’s products such as bar owners and gun manufacturers. 

The ethical and moral responsibility that has been discussed in the previous paragraphs may be a little different from the concept of moral responsibility that was held in the 20th century. In the first interpretation, the company could only be held liable for the dangers that occurred knowingly, and they could have prevented the dangers. However, the 21st-century interpretation of moral responsibility extends to the harm that is caused by users of the company’s products on a third party (Creyer, 2007). There are theoretical concerns that have occurred due to the interpretation of moral responsibility: To what company extent would a company be held morally responsible for the use of their products by customers and how various companies reduce their exposures to the moral responsibility caused by their customers on themselves and third party users?

Various companies have come up with ethics advisory committees that will assist them to make credible decisions. One of these companies is the Santa Clara Affymetrix. Their technology allows them to put about 6.5 million different types of genetic information in one of their chip. The technology can be used for various moral reasons and could have devastating effects if wrongly used. The utilization of the chips is in the best interests of the company (Ruegger & King, 2012). The company focuses on the ethical uses of their chips to ensure that is used for the right reasons. The ethical advisory team is made up of external participants who are qualified in fields such as sociology, law, bioethics, anthropology, and genetics. In most situations, they offer non-corporate and independent opinions on various issues. 

The company has been able to put their ethical opinions into practice. For instance, the corporate received a proposal from an Israeli company that intended to use their chip to test for common disorders and conditions that faced their population such as the Tay-Sachs disease and other treatable and untreatable diseases. However, the company did not explain how they could carry out the testing. After a careful analysis, the Israeli company intended to use the Affymetrix chip to market a Palestinian chip that would be used to profile Palestinians (Bowie, 2009). The advisory committee raised a red flag because of the possible implications of the project on geopolitics and questionable genetics. Furthermore, it was discovered that the company was not a genetic testing but a marketing company. Santa Clara Affymetrix declined to be part of the project because of the ethical and moral concerns (Sternberg, 2010). Due to the emergence of genetic technology, there have been various ethical concerns. It is a new industry that should consider not only internal issues regarding moral responsibility but also the national and global concerns. 

Legal Analysis

The law requires various manufacturers to test and ensure that their products are safe for distribution to the market. Furthermore, the marketers and manufacturers are required to make public any dangers or risks that are associated with the product. The duty to test and warn consumers of the dangers should continue even after the product has been distributed and sold to consumers. The most common lawsuits mainly face device manufacturers and drug makers (Creyer, 2007). Nevertheless, the law has come to the rescue of manufacturers in an attempt to ensure that certain drugs are released to the market as quickly as possible. For instance, the Congress passed a “no fault” legislation in 1986 in response to the dwindling supply of vaccines in the country. The legislation protected the vaccine developers from any legal claims that would have occurred so that the vaccines could be released to the market. 

Furthermore, there have been serious health concerns such as the AIDS epidemic that made legislators do away with rules that seemed to be reducing or slowing down the innovations in drug making. However, the easing down of rules has made it quite easy for the companies to get approval despite the fact that they may be dangerous. In many situations, the devices and drugs are not properly tested, and their drug makers and device manufacturers do not make the adequate warnings after the products have been released into the market (Creyer, 2007). It is quite evident that new innovations are required by the society, but the need to solve various problems in the society should be adequately balanced with public safety. Over the recent eras, the number of recalled drugs has been increased to 309 between 2006 and 2009. The ethical concerns have increased the need for product liability claims. 

Sellers, manufacturers, and distributors have a moral and ethical responsibility to the public to predict and distribute products that are defect free. Such responsibilities are described as product liability. A plaintiff can file a legal claim for injuries that emanate from product defects. Most of the product liability claims result from faulty medical devices and dangerous drugs. The product liability claims have three categories: manufacturing defects, design defects, and marketing defects (Ruegger & King, 2012). Design defects occur when the manufacturer of a drug or device can foresee a danger in its design. Marketing defects occur when the producers foresee a danger but give wrong warnings or instructions or fail to give the warning about the imminent dangers of the product. Manufacturing defects occur when there are proper designs and marketing, but there are mistakes in the manufacturing process that resulted in defects. 

The negligence by various drug manufacturers and drug makers has resulted in high profile lawsuits. In some cases, thousands of consumers were injured by the use of their products before they were recalled. Furthermore, it may take several consumer complaints and lawsuits for the FDA to take attention of the dangers caused by the drug. The lawsuits against Dalkon Shield in 1974 were critical in setting an example on the importance of public health (Sternberg, 2010). The company ad continuously marketed their products despite the fact that it was aware of its dangers and safety concerns. Millions of dollars were spent in compensating the victims after the litigation. The litigations caused the public and jury to discover the negligence of the company, and it was instrumental in taking the dangerous product out of the market. Similar benefits can be attained from product liability lawsuits. The lawsuits put a lot of pressure on various marketer and manufacturers to prevent the sale of dangerous products. 

Some of the high-profile cases include the GlaxoSmithKline case where they agreed to pay about $460 million in a settlement for about 10,000 lawsuits because the company had hidden the risks of heart attacks that were associated with their diabetes drug. Merck was also required to pay a $4.85 billion settlement to 50000 claims after their painkiller suffered strokes and heart attacks. Pfizer was also required to pay a $330 million settlement after 2200 lawsuits because their menopause drugs had cancer risks (Ruegger & King, 2012). If a relative or friend has suffered from a serious side effect of a drug or medical device, the victim may have a legal claim. The victim may be entitled to compensation for punitive damages and injuries. The claims emanate from hospital costs, pain and suffering, lost wages, and diminished quality of life. However, the claims are different according to the extent of the dangers caused by the product. 

Legal vs. Ethical Analysis

Producing quality products should not just be a legal concern or out of fear of lawsuits, but it should be the moral and legal responsibility of the company. There are two ethical duties that businesses have towards consumers. The first duty requires the company to offer the consumers what they have paid for. They are obligated to give products according to ye value of money offered by the consumer. The second duty requires all products produced by businesses not to cause any danger or harm to consumers (Bowie, 2009). The moral decisions that are made are made by companies should be due to the fact that they are ethical and are right rather than fearing the lawsuits that may arise in the future. However, some customers may be negligent of the dangers that may arise from using a particular product. 

It is ethical for companies to be honest and open about the services and products that sell to customers. Moreover, consumers need to be informed about all the services and products that they purchase without the need of becoming experts in particular fields. Due to the free market and very many products, it is quite challenging for consumers to have proper knowledge of all the products that they use. Initially, when most production processes were not complex, consumers used to be well informed. However, the production processes in various companies have become quite complex (Goodpaster, 2013). Most products are manufactured by experts who have spent years studying the production process of that particular product. Due to the complex nature of the processes, companies should be honest with their customers who have little knowledge of the production process. Also, people used to be self-sufficient in their farms, but due to modernization, people have become increasingly dependent on services and products sold by companies. 

The safety of products is an ethical responsibility of all producers who have an obligation to offer customers that are safe for use. However, the trust that was initially placed on companies proved to be misplaced because of the millions of American who have made claims because of the medical treatment from accidents that were product related. Some drugs have had harmful effects including death while some children’s toys may possess dangerous chemicals such as lead. In the early 20th century, consumers were supposed to have sufficient knowledge of the products before making a purchase (Bowie, 2009). The doctrine was phased out, and companies could only be held liable after they were found guilty and they were not responsible for the injuries sustained by consumers. Nevertheless, the modern society uses the doctrine of strict liability where companies are liable for all the dangers that can occur even after they take precautions. 

The government has a responsibility to ensure the safety of the public through agencies such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission that set the necessary standards, bans dangerous products and makes the general policies regarding all the production processes. However, consumer protection is costly affair because it requires the deployment of many officials. Also, it is costly for both consumers and manufacturers because consumers have to pay for their safety (Goodpaster, 2013). The consumer protection by the government is a form of legal paternalism where the government acts as the protective parent. However, the government protectionism is not completely effective. Some critics have questioned consumer protection by the government, but the government is quite beneficial and important when they step in to protect consumers from unethical companies. Poor standard goods may have high profits for the companies, but they are quite costly to the consumer in terms of treatment costs, death, and even loss of wages. 

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of businesses to provide safe products whether they are regulated or not. They should make the safety of the consumer their priority. A company should not dismiss the necessary safety standards because of the cost implications. Companies should not have the misconception that all accidents occur because of product misuse and that they should be absolved of all moral responsibility. They should ensure that all manufacturing processes have been properly supervised and that all employees have been properly trained to work in their companies (Ruegger & King, 2012). After production, the products should be properly tested to ensure they attain the required standards. Moreover, after the products have been marketed and distributed, the company should ensure that all the warnings have been adequately described. Also, the company should launch adequate investigations on customer complaints while taking the necessary actions. 

Summary

The paper has analyzed the ethical and legal issues that face companies that sell products that are harmful or dangerous. Moral responsibility refers to the obligation, duty, and culpability of companies to produce and distribute products that are not harmful to the users. In business ethics, the company would be morally responsible for any injury that may have occurred if they were the cause, were aware of their actions, and could have put measures to stop it but they did not. The law requires various manufacturers to test and ensure that their products are safe for distribution to the market. Producing quality products should not just be a legal concern or out of fear of lawsuits, but it should be the moral and legal responsibility of the company (Bowie, 2009). It is ethical for companies to be honest and open about the services and products that sell to customers. Moreover, consumers need to be informed about all the services and products that they purchase without the need of becoming experts in particular fields. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of businesses to provide safe products whether they are regulated or not.

References

Bowie, N. E. (2009). Business ethics: A Kantian perspective.

Creyer, E. H. (2007). The influence of firm behavior on purchase intention: do consumers really care about business ethics?. Journal of consumer Marketing , 14 (6), 421-432.

Goodpaster, K. E. (2013). Business ethics . John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Ruegger, D., & King, E. W. (2012). A study of the effect of age and gender upon student business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics , 11 (3), 179-186.

Sternberg, E. (2010). Just business: Business ethics in action.