People vs. Profit
An independent lab went to various dollar stores and tested their
products for dangerous chemicals. These stores had 81% of the products
contained levels of hazardous chemicals that can be linked to birth defects,
learning disabilities and cancer. Two of the stores response came back stating
that they have policies and procedures for a third party testing lab to meet
regulations. However, they also stated they required their suppliers to certify
they have tested and meet compliance.
The ethical issue here revolves around who is it to decide that
profits for shareholders are more important than the health and safety of the
human race. As Thomas Jefferson said, we have unalienable rights, absolute
rights given to us by God; specifically the Declaration of Independence
provides "protection from cruel and unusual punishment". Individuals
are unknowingly being punished by the contamination in these items. Knowingly
exposing individuals to chemicals that can cause long term injury and even
death, is not how we ought to act. Money is not a motivator to violate another
humans rights, based on the lessons in the Bible. One individual is not any
more important than another, and their health and safety should not be
negotiable for money.
The ethical theory of egoism would apply to the way companies
are handling the allegations. Ethical
Theory and Business (page 12), discusses psychosocial egoism as an
explanation of human conduct, stating that individuals are motivated by to act
in their own perceived self-interest. Ethical egoism states that an individual makes
decisions based on the promotion of their own well-being over that of everyone else’s,
which is how the companies in question are behaving (Ethical Theory and Business, page 14).
The companies in question have not reacted to the allegations in
an appropriate fashion. A company that sources products from countries known to
have a history of using dangerous chemicals, should
act responsibility and have additional testing done by an impartial
source. Accepting the certification from suppliers stating they follow
the guidelines, may legally take off some of the accountability of the companies;
however they are still responsible to their customers and their employees’
safety.
The more ethical route that I would propose is that the company should
request the results from the organization and have the same products
independently tested to verify their stated results. If the results are
consistent with the toxicity claims, they need to take steps to refine their
supply base. Working with suppliers that will meet the standards set forth in
the Environmental Protection Agency's The Toxic Substances Control Act of
1976. When sourcing to external countries, you can experience a variety of
barriers, including communication misunderstandings. Companies should be
required to perform sample testing to ensure that the product being sourced is
in compliance with the applicable US laws.
If one company is allowed to “slip” by the laws, then the potential
for others to begin cutting corners to save money is high. While they may profit,
society may suffer.
Sources:
References
Beauchamp, T. (1979). Ethical theory and business.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
No comments:
Post a Comment