Corporate Social Responsibility and the Environment: The Fordasaurus
Ford Motor Company failed to identify appropriate corporate social responsibility strategies that would address the issues in the society and environment. Primarily, a vehicle manufacturer must be concerned about the environmental hazards of the their products. Moreover, a vehicle manufacturer, the most important social issue that would affect the company’s operations, image and competitiveness in the market and locations where it operates. Unfortunately, Ford failed to integrate its business with the society where in a relationship must exist to succeed and sustain growth since both must co-exist to ensure mutual gain. In the manufacturing of Excursion, it appeared that the revenues and profits were considered over social issues concerning the environment.
Ford’s advocacy for a greener environment was a good strategy to manage its reputation. However, there are other environmental issues associated with the car industry that requires importance and attention which are air pollution and fuel consumption. In the process of formulating environmental strategies, the company was unable to proactively incorporate pollution prevention in manufacturing their vehicles, specifically the Excursion. Moreover, although the raw materials for Excursion were 85% recyclable and 20% from recycled materials, the company did not invest on making the product environmental-friendly despite the almost 50% profit margin per unit.
In developing the Excursion, Ford has attempted to be socially and environmentally responsible by integrating a cost-saving fuel consumption for the Excursion’s vehicle class, however, other environmental aspects were not given importance such as the air pollution. The profit margin for the Excursion was relatively higher at 20,000 per unit with the annual sales of 50,000 to 60,000 and such was already forecasted by the company. If Ford proactively invested more on prevention or even minimizing air pollution on the Excursion, it could be branded as an environmentally responsible car manufacturer.
Employer ; Employee and International Ethics: Foreign Assignment
Sara can be considered as discriminated by her employer, specifically her immediate supervisor by forcing her to adhere to inferior treatment to conform to the culture and norms of the Mexican market base despite of the obvious disdain against her rights as a woman. This is called ethical relativism where in the approach of a business is to follow suit to the market’s culture and ethics despite of moral and discrimination concerns that come along with it. Business people tend to adopt to the culture and practices of the market in lieu of the profits and revenues that the company can earn from the venture and the disregard to the morally questionable practices are not considered On the other hand, the manager, William Vitam, have adopted the “When in Rome, do as Romans do” to maintain and safeguard the growth of the business inspite of the damanging and insulting outcomes of the practices to the employees.
He resorted to such strategy to display flexibility and to protect the welfare of the company, however, the moral and psychological damages to employees are ignored. If Mr. Vitam will adapt the Donaldson approach, he will dismiss ethical relativism and imperialism, and base his principles in the middle path which requires him to respect the core human values; dignity and rights which will serve as the borderline or standards of ethical values. Values are relatively and globally similar which simply implies that such are innate and constant. Therefore, it can be stated that “When in Rome, or anywhere else, do what you should do when you are at home”. Sara opted to act based on her values and morals, hence, respect for women and discrimination are almost globally embraced.
Sara should be flexible and should adapt to the culture and norms of Mexicans as long as such are morally appropriate, non-discriminatory and professionally suitable. Countries have different culture and norms, and it is the responsibility of a transnational company to conform to such without sacrificing its ethics and morals. If a company persisted on adapting to the cultural practices which are morally incorrect, it will bring about conflicts among employees and its reputation will be at stake.
Ethics and Marketing: The Skateboard Scare
There are three theories of product safety and liability, these are: breach of warranty, negligence and strict liability. Breach of warranty is an acknowledgement of the manufacturer or supplier during on the point of sale of the product while negligence is an obligation and non-compliance of such obligation may cause qualified customer’s injury. On the other hand, strict liability states that all accountabilities are shouldered by the manufacturer concerning product defect. Among the three theories of product safety and liability, negligence and breach of warranty are the most applicable approach for the case of Brewsters Bicycle Shop. All products must come with warranty as an added service for the customers. You may also be interested in reading Business and Society Relationship
Moreover, Brewsters Bicycle shop must be also observe the negligence theory since it is its accountability to ensure that their products meet the safety standards set by the government. In advertising the company’s skateboards, Brewsters failed to indicate a disclaimer stating the danger and hazards of skateboarding. The visual image of skateboarders doing complex routines without a disclaimer gives the impression of safety since the consequences of skateboarding are shown to be do-it-yourself or easy like pancakes notion among views. The company then violated its social responsibility to warn the public about the safety of each products, therefore, it can be concluded that the ads made for Brewsters are unethical and careless.
The committee and Brewster both have logical reasons concerning the advertising of the latter. However, it is the social responsibility of the company to warn the public about the safety hazards of its products. The company should take full responsibility of all the expenses incurred because of this television ad since it failed to insert a detailed a disclaimer pertaining to the safety and use of the product. Non-compliance of such may result to the injury of the customers which may increase the expenses of the company. Resters’ TV advertisements have displayed a non-socially responsible and non-morally unethical company which is motivated by profits while disregarding the society’s welfare and safety.