The who-how (WH) framework for business ethics provides guidelines that would help the business organization in decision making to ensure that such decisions are confined within precepts of business ethics. The “who” component of this framework requires business organizations to consider the would-be victims of their decisions. Normally, it requires an evaluation of all the possible effects on all the stakeholders such as customers, employees, investors, governments, and communities in general (Kubasek, Browne, Herron, Dhooge & Barkacs, 2016). Therefore, business decisions must be in the interest of all the stakeholders for it to be considered ethical. The “how” component of this framework requires businesses to undertake a public disclosure test when evaluating whether or not a particular decision is ethical. The test requires a business to determine whether it will be comfortable if their decision is broadcasted to the public.
Ford Company’s decision not to recall and repair faulty fuel tanks was not informed by the WH framework of ethical decision making in several ways. Firstly, it did not consider the impact of the decision on all the stakeholders. They sought to protect only the interest of the shareholders by cautioning them against the potential loss that they would have incurred had they opted to repair the cars. The interests of the other stakeholders were blatantly ignored such as the interests of the customers. The issue in the question posed a great danger to this stakeholder group. It would be logical for businesses to consider preserving the lives of the customers when making such a decision (Mea & Sims, 2018).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Secondly, the decision did not take into consideration the interests of the community within which the business operates. The impact of fire resulting from the cars did not only affect the customers but also other third-party community members. It equally put them at risk of being burnt. Moreover, it ignored the long-term impact on shareholder’s return on investment. The increased cases of explosions of the cars had the potential to discourage customer and spread negative publicity among customers in the market. The move would reduce the business revenue and profitability in the end.
Ford’s management also ignored the provision of the “how” component of the WH framework when arriving at their decision. This component required the Ford Company to undertake a public disclosure test. If the company leaders had done so, they would have imagined a scenario where their decision was broadcasted to the public across the globe where its products are used. The unease of letting the world know of a given decision is a clear indication of the unethical practice by the company (Kubasek, Browne, Herron, Dhooge & Barkacs, 2016). Ford Company would be uncomfortable to publicly declare that they have chosen to reduce their cost of repairing the cars at the expense of the lives and properties of their customers and the public at large. Consequently, the company would stop such a decision on the grounds of ethics. By continuing to implement the decision, Ford demonstrated that they failed or refused to undertake a public disclose test and hence their decision was not ethical.
Overall, the WH framework of evaluating ethical decision-making is a critical tool that organizations can leverage on in ensuring that they make ethical decisions. Analyzing the case of Ford company decision from the WH framework reveals Ford's decision not to repair the cars but undertake compensations was not ethical.
References
Kubasek, N., Browne, M. N., Herron, D. J., Dhooge, L. J., & Barkacs, L. (2016). Dynamic business law: The essentials (3rd Ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
Mea, W. J., & Sims, R. R. (2018). Human dignity-centered business ethics: a conceptual framework for business leaders. Journal of Business Ethics, 7 (3), 77-90.
