In conclusion, there were many ethical issues in the decision to change the chemical makeup of the aftershave, including but not limited to the use a non-FDA approved chemical additive and the failure to provide a disclaimer, in any form, about the additive being used. If the owners had used the WPH Framework for Business Ethics in their decision-making process, this issue may have been avoided. Under the Framework, there are three considerations: ‘Who’ the decision will affect, what ‘Purpose’ they are pursuing with the decision, and ‘How’ will the company meet the action-oriented business behavior (Kubasek et al., 2012, Chapter 2).
In the first consideration ‘Who’, we look at the main stakeholder affected in this case, the consumer. There …show more content…
Had they tested PYR to determine how it would affect their consumer, it would have been clear that any gain in profit could be reallocated to cover potential litigation costs associated with liability claims. In making the decision, honesty was not taken in to consideration when they chose not to disclose the use of or potential side effects of the non-FDA approved additive on the product labeling, their website, or even through their advertising so their customers were aware before purchasing and use.
The third, and last consideration is the “How” do decision-makers make ethical decisions? During the process, one should consider the ramifications if the decision were made public or if all makers in the cosmetics industry, for example, started to use FDA unapproved ingredients in their product makeups. Lastly, Chris from Funny Face, and whoever was at the decision table for Novelty Now, should have applied the Golden Rule and asked themselves, “How would we feel if we used our product and something adverse occurred? Or “Would we use this untested product ourselves?”
The overall review of Funny Face and Novelty Now’s decision to use the PYR chemical was an unethical decision based on the fact they did not test nor understand the effects of PYR, nor did they properly package the aftershave bottle per FDA
In the first consideration ‘Who’, we look at the main stakeholder affected in this case, the consumer. There …show more content…
Had they tested PYR to determine how it would affect their consumer, it would have been clear that any gain in profit could be reallocated to cover potential litigation costs associated with liability claims. In making the decision, honesty was not taken in to consideration when they chose not to disclose the use of or potential side effects of the non-FDA approved additive on the product labeling, their website, or even through their advertising so their customers were aware before purchasing and use.
The third, and last consideration is the “How” do decision-makers make ethical decisions? During the process, one should consider the ramifications if the decision were made public or if all makers in the cosmetics industry, for example, started to use FDA unapproved ingredients in their product makeups. Lastly, Chris from Funny Face, and whoever was at the decision table for Novelty Now, should have applied the Golden Rule and asked themselves, “How would we feel if we used our product and something adverse occurred? Or “Would we use this untested product ourselves?”
The overall review of Funny Face and Novelty Now’s decision to use the PYR chemical was an unethical decision based on the fact they did not test nor understand the effects of PYR, nor did they properly package the aftershave bottle per FDA