Relationship between business and ethics is highly controversial issue, where there are right and wrong actions. The case of H.B. Fuller helps people to think about what is business ethics and how they are related. H.B Fuller is a manufacturing company producing adhesives globally, and Resistol is Fuller’s glue that brought serious consequence in Latin America. The numerous street children of Latin America were exposed to the glue and inhaled it. Whether H.B. Fuller is morally responsible for children sniffing or not is depending on what people believe. The primary ethical issue in this case is who has to take the responsibility of this fatal situation. Does H.B. Fuller have to take it because it is Fuller’s glue? or is it okay to keep producing
…show more content…
In Honduras, where H.B. Fuller produced Resistol, had both high social and economic problems. People in Honduras lived in poverty, suffered from low income and unemployment, and children had to go to work rather than receive an education. There was no relationship between the miserable conditions and H.B. Fuller. The duty of the making better circumstance is more falls on government’s responsibility. Although the street children were addicted to the glue, and the glue brought the ethical issue, we have to examine and consider a fundamental reason. The reason why the children started to sniff glue was because they needed something to rely on. They wanted to forget difficulties, poverty, and fear, and sniffing glue was one of the methods to escape from them. Understanding what is going on and figuring out how to cure the children is more significant and proper behavior than just stopping H.B. Fuller to sell the glues. From the standpoint of deontologists, not only H.B. Fuller is morally responsible for abuse of glue, but the government or whoever did not care for their children also would have fulfilled their duties, and I agree with the deontologists’ stance on this …show more content…
In other words, H.B. Fuller would not have expected this desperate consequence, but they would have expected high profit by producing glue, which shoe repairer needs. Focusing on how to create one’s profit is not unethical behavior, and that is what business regards as their goal. Edward Freeman argues all business decisions affect stakeholders, which includes “customers, suppliers, employees, communities, and financiers,” and that is why they have to apply ethics into their business decisions. However, if H.B. Fuller decides to stop producing the glue, it would affect shoe repair company and employees. The company may have a possibility to choose the best option, but it is probably difficult to satisfy all stakeholders. Moreover, no matter what they decide and no matter what standards they use, it must be provide direction to higher profit because this is the reason how business survive. Following Milton Friedman who advocated free-market economy claimed that business has to try to maximize their its profits rather than pursing a social profit within laws and regulations. Let’s assume two different situations; the first one is a business desires only social profit rather than business’s profit. This is totally beneficial to community, customers, and governments, but it totally does not make sense to other people such as
In Honduras, where H.B. Fuller produced Resistol, had both high social and economic problems. People in Honduras lived in poverty, suffered from low income and unemployment, and children had to go to work rather than receive an education. There was no relationship between the miserable conditions and H.B. Fuller. The duty of the making better circumstance is more falls on government’s responsibility. Although the street children were addicted to the glue, and the glue brought the ethical issue, we have to examine and consider a fundamental reason. The reason why the children started to sniff glue was because they needed something to rely on. They wanted to forget difficulties, poverty, and fear, and sniffing glue was one of the methods to escape from them. Understanding what is going on and figuring out how to cure the children is more significant and proper behavior than just stopping H.B. Fuller to sell the glues. From the standpoint of deontologists, not only H.B. Fuller is morally responsible for abuse of glue, but the government or whoever did not care for their children also would have fulfilled their duties, and I agree with the deontologists’ stance on this …show more content…
In other words, H.B. Fuller would not have expected this desperate consequence, but they would have expected high profit by producing glue, which shoe repairer needs. Focusing on how to create one’s profit is not unethical behavior, and that is what business regards as their goal. Edward Freeman argues all business decisions affect stakeholders, which includes “customers, suppliers, employees, communities, and financiers,” and that is why they have to apply ethics into their business decisions. However, if H.B. Fuller decides to stop producing the glue, it would affect shoe repair company and employees. The company may have a possibility to choose the best option, but it is probably difficult to satisfy all stakeholders. Moreover, no matter what they decide and no matter what standards they use, it must be provide direction to higher profit because this is the reason how business survive. Following Milton Friedman who advocated free-market economy claimed that business has to try to maximize their its profits rather than pursing a social profit within laws and regulations. Let’s assume two different situations; the first one is a business desires only social profit rather than business’s profit. This is totally beneficial to community, customers, and governments, but it totally does not make sense to other people such as