Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Political Science mach mach 1. In your judgment, is H.B. Fuller morally responsible for the addiction of street children to its Resistol products? In my opinion, H.B. Fuller is not morally responsible for the addiction of street children to its Resistol products. A corporation is morally responsible only for those acts and their foreseen injurious effects: (a) which the corporation knowingly and freely performed or brought about and which it was morally wrong for the corporation to fail to perform or prevent and/or (b) which the person knowingly and freely failed to perform or prevent and which it was morally wrong for the corporation to fail to perform or prevent. Only two conditions completely eliminate a person’s moral responsibility for causing a wrongful injury: (1) ignorance and (2) inability. I believe that H.B. Fuller isn’t morally responsible because once it released its product, it had neither control nor knowledge of how its product were to be misused. When understanding the circumstances of why H.B. Fuller’s product was abused, H.B. Fuller actually helped out the economic problem by providing employment for the region. No argument can be made that H.B. Fuller did not make attempts to abort the misuse of its product. There is a fine line, however, between whether H.B. Fuller was morally responsible and if it had a moral obligation to intervene to help the issue. To understand this issue from both sides, it is also important to gain a perspective from the corporate finance world. Understanding that the goal of a corporation is to maximize the profits of its shareholders, H.B. Fuller really did not have a social obligation. If, however, in H.B. Fuller’s mission statement it was stated that the overall objectives of the corporation include a societal contribution, than the company cannot neglect helping its community. Do you agree or disagree with the statement that the social condition in Honduras and Guatemala are responsible for misuse of H.B. Fuller’s products and that neither the products nor the company is to blame? The social condition is certainly a main cause; but it does not necessarily take all of the causal blame. Not only does the social condition factor into the misuse of Fuller’s products but also does the economic factor relate to the issue. The economic condition is certainly not the sole bearer of cause for the misuse of Fuller’s products, either. There are certain players in this unfortunate epidemic that have not been taken into account. These variables include the retailers, middlemen, and corrupt distributors who most likely made a profit from selling the glue to the children on the streets. In addition, there was management among the subsidiary companies who helped produce this product that must have been aware of this pertinent issue. Who is to say that management never tried to resolve anything, or even bring up the issue? They probably did, but nothing drastic as cancellation of their product ever came of it. All in all, the social and economic conditions in Guatemala and Honduras were the primary reasons why the children resorted to a medium of venting, namely H.B. Fuller’s product. Could the company and its products have intervened to help the dilemma? Yes. Did the company and its products’ make alterations to accommodate the moral standard set by child advocate groups and the government? Yes. Were these preventative measures enough to stop the problem? No. Why? The social and economic problems were larger. Do you agree or disagree that a parent company is not responsible for the activities of its subsidiaries? I disagree that a parent company is not responsible for the activities of its subsidiaries. A parent company is to its subsidiaries what a superior is to its subordinate. Often in corporate life communication is channeled downward, and employees or subsidiaries often act on the basis of their superiors alone. In this case, H.B. Fuller company of St. Paul, Minnesota is the parent company to Kativo Chemical Industries. H.B. Fuller S.A. is at the bottom of the chain, operating as the secondary subsidiary to H.B. Fuller of Minnesota. I believe that when a parent company leads a subsidiary in carrying out an act that both of them know is wrong, the subsidiary is morally responsible for that act if it carries it out, too. Is the parent company also morally responsible? Obviously, the parent company is also morally responsible because in leading the subsidiary, the parent company is knowingly and freely bringing about the wrongful act through the instrumentality of the subsidiary or its leading by wrongful example. The fact that a parent company draws on a subsidiary to bring about the wrongful act does not change the fact that the parent company brought it about. Today, Philip Morris has received a bad reputation for its promotion of cigarettes, since it is a major player in the tobacco industry. Philip Morris, however, is the parent company of Marlboro, Virginia Slims, Merit, and Parliament cigarettes. Thus, it is Philip Morris that is taking the hit from non-smoking advocate groups for its subsidiary cigarette companies. These subsidiary cigarette companies often violate certain advertisement regulations that prevent ads targeted toward youngsters. These ads must be presented and approved by upper management in the marketing department of the parent company. Thus it can be seen that the parent company is responsible in some respect for the actions of its subsidiaries. 2. In your judgment, did H.B. Fuller conduct itself in a morally appropriate manner? In my opinion, the question of whether or not H.B. Fuller acted in a morally appropriate manner regarding the addiction of street children to its Resistol products can be answered by analyzing what is “morally appropriate.” H.B. Fuller is obviously a multinational corporation containing subsidiaries in foreign countries. According to the text, when dealing with a multinational corporation and its moral standards afar from its global headquarters, it is best to rest on the theory of relativism. Relativism is the view that there are no standards that are absolutely true and that apply or should be applied to the companies and people of all societies. Thus, the company or businessperson who operates in several different countries and who encounters societies with many different moral standards are advised by the theory of relativism in this way: In one’s moral reasoning, one should always follow the moral standards prevalent in whatever society one finds itself. Applying the theory of relativism to this particular case, I find H.B. Fuller did have a moral obligation to help the cause for the deaths of Central American children. Now let’s take a look at how H.B. Fuller reacted. Especially in Honduras, it was made clear by the child advocate groups and the government that H.B. Fuller should fulfill the moral standard of its society. H.B. Fuller countered by believing its moral standard was fulfilled though providing employment to help its economy. In addition, H.B. Fuller’s efforts included attempts to do the best it could to prevent the effects of Resistol. First, Fuller, in coalition with the government, initiated an education program to help street kids realized the detriments of sniffing glue. Second, Fuller committed to control its distribution of the glue and asked for the government to help with this task. Why then, did the problem still persist? The government really never helped regulate distribution. When Honduras prohibited the sale of toluene-based products to children, the government rarely enforced it. Because H.B. Fuller felt obligated to help out more, it discontinued glue-sales in small jars, paid for social workers to help children on the streets, and provided information to distributors warning the dangers of Resistol. H.B. Fuller even went to the extent of increasing its prices for glue to deter youngsters from getting their hands on it. Finally, the company board of directors voted to stop selling Resistol adhesives on the basis that a replacement product was not on the horizon and illegitimate distribution was continuing. H.B. Fuller clearly took numerous steps to help further prevent more youth deaths. However, where Fuller went wrong was at the end where they thought that by stop selling to retailers, and keeping their business with industrial customers, the problem would be solved. Here is where H.B. Fuller did not act in a morally appropriate manner. They still managed to check this fault by again increasing glue prices and changing its chemical form. As a result, Fuller was inconsistent in its practice of acting in a morally responsible manner, although they acted appropriately in more ways than not throughout the dilemma. If H.B. Fuller wasn’t a multinational company, but was an American company operating only in US, and that the events outlined in the case had occurred in the US on the streets of a US city, how would this change your moral evaluation of H.B. Fuller’s conduct? If H.B. Fuller was an American company operating only in the US, and all of the events pertaining to this case took place within US borders, then H.B. Fuller would have had more moral responsibility and moral obligation to help the cause. Fuller’s increased moral responsibility and obligation would have stemmed from its national corporate status, as opposed to a multinational corporate status. Because a multinational corporation encounters many different cultures from its diverse international presence, its moral standards are not as clear-cut as a national corporation. A national corporation succumbs to the moral standards of its society and its views of what is morally right or wrong are only that of its own society. Therefore, Fuller’s actions in the US would have been seen as minimal intervention. Consequently, child advocates and social workers in the US would have joined with the government to formulate an overbearing power. Fuller would then be convinced to take immediate action or a legal battle could result. 3. What, if anything, should the company have done that it did not do? Although Fuller made every attempt it thought was necessary to prevent its products from causing harm, it could have provided more intervention. First, H.B. Fuller should have put more research into mustard seed oil and its effect on adhesives like the United States’ chemical companies had done. Research into this solution would involve consulting with the FDA to solidify positive results. This could have very well been an easy solution to Fuller and the Latin American children. Second, Fuller should have decided to discontinue its product earlier than it did. If it did make this decision, then all sales should be eliminated, not just to retailers but to industrial vendors as well. Lastly, the company should have communicated more effectively with its parent company in the US to formulate a sound plan to addressing its ethical dilemma. Bibliography: Word Count: 1778
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.