The two retail companies picked are Walmart and Costco whose 2017 Financial statement links are provided below: WALMART https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/ wmt/financials?query=income- statement COSTCO https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/ cost/financials?query=income- statement Both organizations are well known brands and position themselves well with their customer base. Walmart’s value proposition is “We save people money so they can live better”. On the other hand, Costco’s value proposition is “All-in-one convenience and everyday affordability”. Both retailers focus on cost saving for their customers. Looking at their financial statements and by analyzing them a few key areas are evident when comparing the two organization. Looking at the current ratio and quick ratio we can determine the short-term solvency of each organization. The current ratio can be determined by dividing the assets by the liabilities. Walmart’s current ratio sits at 0.86 while Costco’s sits at 0.99. The quick ratio is c...
Should a corporation buy land in Mexico, import DDT from the USA, grow larger crops, and export them to the USA?
Introduction
In this discussion post, I consider how businesses ought to act in the absence of explicitly documented regulations. The issues addressed here include corporate social responsibility as well as moral accountability.
Along certain ethical theories, it makes sense to approve for the corporation to buy land in Mexico, import DDT from the US, grow larger crops, and then export it to the US. A utilitarian approach – an ethical theory that affirms that right acts are those that maximize utility or happiness (Bentham, 1996) – closely aligns with this. Approaching it from a cost-benefit angle will mean that it reduces the cost of production for the corporation; it provides jobs for the local residence in Mexico and reduces the cost of sales back in the US (Strain, 2018). However, calculating what may be considered ultimate utility or the actual cost-benefit is quite difficult especially since the aim is to see if it outweighs the negative consequences of environmental pollution. From this perspective, the use of DDT may be ethically justified. Another approach that possibly grants justification for this line of action is the argument from free use that simply encourages the exploitation of the environment for the maximization of profit.
The corporation has an ethical duty to protect its employees/workers from the harmful effects of DDT by providing the required protection gears, developing operations protocol and the provision of medical aid. To the neighbouring landowners, the corporation ought to embark on social corporate responsibility. It must also educate local residence of the hazard of DDT use, how to avoid direct contact and make efforts at using innovation to compensate for the use of DDT in confined spaces.
Furthermore, the corporation is expected to act in compliance with global best practice irrespective of the availability of legal frameworks to that effect. In terms of fairness, international corporations should only act as they would in their home countries where laws are better developed. In this case, it ought to respect the National Environmental Policy Act (Business Ethics, 2012) and possibly conduct an environmental impact assessment. It also must ensure the protection of endangered species – plants and animals – and operate only in a controlled environment. The corporation must also comply with other regulations that may be resultant effects of DDT use, such as clean water act, endangered species act etc. The fact that there may be no explicit ban on DDT does not imply that other regulation regarding water, air and land pollution should be ignored.
Lastly, the corporation owes it to its US consumers to inform them that the produce is grown with the aid of DDT. More importantly, one of its duty is to ensure imported agricultural produce maintain all standards expected of home grown produce. It must also ensure that these produce meet all health standards of the FDA within the country.
It is worthy of note to revamp that ethical duties are not necessarily legislations or regulations. In other words, a thing might be legally permissible but not necessarily moral in itself (Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, 2015). On the other hand, they may be no legal provision for an act but it is morally praise-worthy to act ethically. In this case, DDT manufacturers must indemnify themselves by stating clearly on product how it ought to be used and the possible environmental hazard the use of such products could bring. Through innovation and research, manufacturers must also look for ways to ensure that these products are safer to use.
Conclusion
In conclusion, corporations ought to desist from the corporate philosophy that Bernard Mandeville outlines in the “Fable of the Bees” (Rutledge, 2006); in which he argues that vices are the foundation of corporate and national prosperity. An ethic of duty must be prized over an attempt to maximize profit.
References
Bentham, J. (1996). The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham: An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. (2015, Aug 1). A Framework for Ethical Decision Making. Santa Clara University. Retrieved from: https://www.scu.edu/
Strain, M. (2018, June 29). Advantages and Disadvantages of Outsourcing Production. Chron. Retrieved from: http://smallbusiness.chron.
Business Ethics (2012). This book is licensed under a Creative Commons by-nc-sa 3.0 license. Retrieved from: http://2012books.
Rutledge, L. (2006). The Fable of the Bees: American Entomologist. 52(3), 134-136. Retrieved from: http://tinyurl.com/ov2arlb
Comments