Solyndra, A U.S. Solar Panel Manufacturer
Solyndra was the first manufacturer to receive a guaranteed loan from the government under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and was endorsed as a model manufacturer for the clean energy economy. In this essay we will look at a brief history of Solyndra, their unethical behavior, ethical framework, and the laws that pertain to this company. It is always an unfortunate situation when a large company, such as Solyndra, is viewed as becoming very successful by so many, then quickly taken out of the game by unforeseen market changes and unethical decisions.
Solyndra History
Solyndra, LLC began its journey as a solar panel manufacturer in 2005. Although their panel was more expensive to make, it was cheaper …show more content…
They were a manufacturer of clean energy, solar panels and the Whitehouse was hopeful that this company was going to be successful in manufacturing and selling solar panels for clean energy. Sadly, the inappropriate spending by the company when finances were already suffering and the Chinese manufacturers making things hard for the U.S. companies were both unfortunate events for this company.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that the manufacturer was originally following, which means electing to choose the decision that will yield the maximum overall good for all parties. They had chosen to make a design of the solar panel that would have the cheaper installation for the end user and could absorb the sun’s energy even if it was not in the direct path. Furthermore, under this ethical theory, we are to too compare the damages and the benefits of an action for all the people that will be affected by the decision, not just the decider (Halbert, 2008). It is pitiful that they did not continue with this ethical theory when it came to spending money. By not continuing to follow utilitarianism, they wound up with a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, multiple investigations, and a lawsuit against …show more content…
Solyndra failed to abide by an employment law in the state of California and was therefore sued by the employees and settled for $3.5 million to be paid to the employees that were laid off without 60-day notice, as required by the California law. Additionally, Solyndra has also been involved in a federal criminal investigation regarding whether or not the executives of the company knowingly misrepresented their financial situation in order to secure the government guaranteed loan. It was reported by the Washington Post on August 26, 2015, that the “Department of Justice reviewed the evidence and elected not to pursue charges” (Leonnig, 2015). Lastly, the anti-trust law is relevant to Solyndra, they have filed an antitrust lawsuit against several overseas solar panel manufactures for ultimately “destroying the U.S. solar industry by flooding the market with their cheap photovoltaic panels” (Woody, 2012). Solyndra’s lawsuit asserts a federal claim under the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Sherman Antitrust Act was “the first U.S. Federal statute that would limit cartels and monopolies” (SHRM, 2016). This Antitrust law makes government attorneys and district courts investigate companies suspected of monopolizing or conspiring with another to monopolize a part of the trade (SHRM, 2016). Regrettably no other articles could be found whether or not this case has been taken to trial or
Solyndra was the first manufacturer to receive a guaranteed loan from the government under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and was endorsed as a model manufacturer for the clean energy economy. In this essay we will look at a brief history of Solyndra, their unethical behavior, ethical framework, and the laws that pertain to this company. It is always an unfortunate situation when a large company, such as Solyndra, is viewed as becoming very successful by so many, then quickly taken out of the game by unforeseen market changes and unethical decisions.
Solyndra History
Solyndra, LLC began its journey as a solar panel manufacturer in 2005. Although their panel was more expensive to make, it was cheaper …show more content…
They were a manufacturer of clean energy, solar panels and the Whitehouse was hopeful that this company was going to be successful in manufacturing and selling solar panels for clean energy. Sadly, the inappropriate spending by the company when finances were already suffering and the Chinese manufacturers making things hard for the U.S. companies were both unfortunate events for this company.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that the manufacturer was originally following, which means electing to choose the decision that will yield the maximum overall good for all parties. They had chosen to make a design of the solar panel that would have the cheaper installation for the end user and could absorb the sun’s energy even if it was not in the direct path. Furthermore, under this ethical theory, we are to too compare the damages and the benefits of an action for all the people that will be affected by the decision, not just the decider (Halbert, 2008). It is pitiful that they did not continue with this ethical theory when it came to spending money. By not continuing to follow utilitarianism, they wound up with a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, multiple investigations, and a lawsuit against …show more content…
Solyndra failed to abide by an employment law in the state of California and was therefore sued by the employees and settled for $3.5 million to be paid to the employees that were laid off without 60-day notice, as required by the California law. Additionally, Solyndra has also been involved in a federal criminal investigation regarding whether or not the executives of the company knowingly misrepresented their financial situation in order to secure the government guaranteed loan. It was reported by the Washington Post on August 26, 2015, that the “Department of Justice reviewed the evidence and elected not to pursue charges” (Leonnig, 2015). Lastly, the anti-trust law is relevant to Solyndra, they have filed an antitrust lawsuit against several overseas solar panel manufactures for ultimately “destroying the U.S. solar industry by flooding the market with their cheap photovoltaic panels” (Woody, 2012). Solyndra’s lawsuit asserts a federal claim under the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Sherman Antitrust Act was “the first U.S. Federal statute that would limit cartels and monopolies” (SHRM, 2016). This Antitrust law makes government attorneys and district courts investigate companies suspected of monopolizing or conspiring with another to monopolize a part of the trade (SHRM, 2016). Regrettably no other articles could be found whether or not this case has been taken to trial or