Ethics Case: Made in the U.S. Dumped in Brazil, Africa
Ethics Case: Made in the U.S. Dumped in Brazil, Africa
For many multinational companies and government agencies in the United States, a common assumption that states that what is dictated to be right in one country must not always be right in another country is made. Similarly, it is assumed that something that is not appropriate in the U.S could prove very useful and helpful in a third world country. It may have been determined by the U.S. that in all the cases of dumping those products proved to be harmful in this country, the benefits are more than the risks. However, this is not always the case (Dowie, 2015).
Question 1 Ethics Case: Made in the U.S. Dumped in Brazil, Africa
The dumping of products proved harmful in the U.S such that these products ended up being used in the third world countries is not ethical. As a matter of fact, a country’s moral ideals are determined by the people living in that particular country. Therefore, the U.S. has no ground to pass any judgment regarding the ideals of another country. As an illustration, the Tris pajamas cannot be regarded as being morally ethical in the U.S since they kill. The same thing may be viewed differently in another country.
The question of dumping of products rendered to be harmful in the Third World countries causes confusion regarding the morally upright ways of conducting business, especially with the current existing U.S regulations. Those promoting the ideas and activities of dumping these products such as the Tris pajamas into the hands of poor and ignorant Third World citizens have defended their actions. One of the arguments has been that the poor people would not have had such clothing and that without the pajamas; these people would still be exposed to even greater safety and health hazards. My feeling is that the companies understand very well that their motives are simply to make profits and not to help the Third World citizens. Their argument is simply an effort to justify their selfish and unethical practice.
The involvement of A. H. Robins Co. that manufactured Dalkon Shield device with the Office of Population in the U. S. AID which eventually resulted in the product being exported to the developing countries to help in population control is not ethical. Ethics Case: Made in the U.S. Dumped in Brazil, Africa
The fact that there seem to be very high mortality rates during birth does not justify the administration of the intrauterine device. First, it had already been established that Dalkon Shield posed severe dangers to its users including inflammation of the pelvic region, poisoning of blood pregnancies which resulted in abortions, tubal pregnancies, and perforations of the uterine, many of these conditions resulted in deaths that were intended to be prevented through the use of device.
Question 2: The Obligations of the Financial Managers
The financial managers of the companies involved in dumping their products seem to be obligated to their shareholders. One obligation involves all that can be done so as to avoid any financial losses that could result from these products. The products could also be dumbed in order to provide a solution to a different problem though the bottom line intention has always been to realize a profit. The shareholders, therefore, want to realize profits and not losses. The problem becomes a simple matter of inventory for the various non-manufacturers such as retailers, wholesalers, brokers, exporters and importers. Eventually, a broker emerges who normally will present a request to buy the goods already banned at a low price usually for resale in a market in a Third World country (Third World Network, 1989).
For the shareholders who have put their money in buying the required tools, assembly plants dies, machines and land, and also invested in the personnel, things are never simple. Therefore, when a large company such as the A. H. Robins forecasts that one of their major products such as the intrauterine device is going to be withdrawn, the financial managers have to think so quickly so as to avert the possibility of the company making big losses from such a threat. Usually, the only salvation will come from dumping millions of the units in foreign countries. Therefore, the company will close up its shops once it has voluntarily withdrawn the products. Eventually, the company will incur a small loss in buying back the evoked inventory and the capital invested ends up being repaid.
Question 3 Ethics Case: Made in the U.S. Dumped in Brazil, Africa
It is clear that many Americans and American agencies do not consider the use of safe products a human right that applies to non-Americans. However, though the dumping of goods could be done in a way that does not violate any U.S. laws; the practice will still be unethical if the products pose a danger to the non-American populations (Third World Network, 1989). Ethics Case: Made in the U.S. Dumped in Brazil, Africa
It is stated that established government agencies which include Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection agency have a responsibility of informing the state department regarding any banned products, which in turn will inform the relevant health officials. Through these notifications, a system of informing foreign governments has been devised. As a result, the foreign governments are informed every time a product is banned or canceled by regulatory agencies in America. However, even with these notifications, it is found that many of the communications are both vague and ambiguous. At times, the information portrayed is so technical that the foreign governments cannot comprehend them. The effect is continued use of banned goods while the consumers remain unaware of the risk involved. The importers can also change the name of the product before shipping it to the foreign countries, making the relaying of the information about the product to be of non-effect.
The main focus of dumpers is realizing profit. As a result, they are highly motivated by the idea of making more profit. By dumping, they also aim at avoiding any financial losses that would result from a product being totally withdrawn from the market in America. The dumping occurs successfully especially as a result of working cooperation that exists between the various American multinationals, the various health agencies, and the American government.
Conclusion Ethics Case: Made in the U.S. Dumped in Brazil, Africa
It is clear that some of the products used in America and exported across the world are toxic. The chemicals in these products have the potential of affecting the entire human gene pool and world environment. There is need for the ethical American business leaders to take a lead so as to end the current worldwide dumping of goods, which so far has shown no sign of fading (Stebbin, 1993).
Dowie, M. (2015). The Corporate Crime of the Century. Mother Jones. Retrieved 20 November 2015, from http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1979/11/corporate-crime-century?page=2
Sheehan, E. The Refund and Review Procedures under EC Anti-Dumping Law.
Stebbins, K. (1993). Garbage imperialism: Health implications of dumping hazardous wastes in third world countries. Medical Anthropology, 15(1), 81-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01459740.1992.9966083
Third World Network, (1989). Toxic waste dumping in the Third World: Third World Network. Race & Class, 30(3), 47-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030639688903000305