Tris-Soaked Pajamas: Production, Prohibitions

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Was the dumping in this case ethical? Those involved in the dumping might have argued that the people receiving the pajamas would not have otherwise had access to such clothing and were notified of the health and safety hazards. Does this affect your feelings about the case? What do you think about the exportation of the Dalkon Shield? Can it be justified because the rate of dying during childbirth in Third World countries is extremely high, and, as such, any effective birth control device is better than none?

In my view, the dumping of pajamas in third-world countries was very unethical. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission had banned the sale of these pajamas since they contained a chemical Tris that cause kidney cancer in children. It was unethical and in a bad mood for the pajama manufacturers to assume that the lives of children from third-world countries were not as important as those from America. It seems that the level of toxicity was so high that the Consumer Product Safety Commission suggested that the pajamas could not be disposed of anyhow. It was very unethical for the Tris–impregnated pajamas manufacturers to take profit advantage and capitalize on the ignorance and poverty of the third world countries at the expense of their children’s safety. Mark Dowie 1979.

Based on the poverty level of the third world countries, these countries are easily receptive to any idea that seems to alleviate their problems. The manufacturers argue that the authority of the country being dumped is always notified of the health and safety hazards effects. This is most cases is not true and hence these authorities permit the sale of the products into their countries without the knowledge of their side effects. As pointed out in the case, communication of some products banned from the U.S. market does not go further than the U.S. embassies abroad. It is also evident that the government of the U.S. encourages unethical behavior of some of their companies that sells harmful commodities to third world counties. This can be deduced from what an embassy official told the general accounting office that he “did not routinely forward notification of chemicals not registered in the host country, because it may adversely affect the U.S.” exporting. Mark Hosenball 1979.

The exportation of the Dalkon Shield cannot be justified because its use has proved dangerous to human health. Any product that has been proved to negatively affect the health of a human being cannot under any circumstances be justifiably used to assist a human being. As spelled out in the case, the dangers of using Dalkon Shield are lethal and fatal and results in more deaths in the long run compared to the rate of death during childbirth. Consequently, if the rate of dying during childbirth in Third World countries is extremely high, there would be no need for birth control since the population would be below. The Company in collaboration with U.S. Agency for International Development through corrupted means was able to sell their harmful products in third world countries without disclosing to the authorities of the receiving countries their hazardous nature. Russell Mokhiber, 1988.

What obligations did the financial managers have to their shareholders to do whatever is possible to avoid major financial losses associated with these products?

Every business has a prime aim of making a profit. Shareholders invest their money into a business intending to receive the highest possible returns from their investment. The obligations of how much and in which means these returns are achieved lie with the financial managers of the firm. The financial managers of any firm therefore should ensure that that kind of investment yields maximum returns to the shareholder’s capital. The financial managers have to expedite all possible means of achieving this objective. To avoid major financial losses associated with these products, the financial managers could act fast and improve on production methods such that the resultant products meet the required specifications. These could be done while still seeking possible ways and means of disposing of the already finished products to other countries where such products have not been banned. This should be done in a way that does not result in a big financial loss and also following moral and ethical standards. Russell Mokhiber, 1988.

Besides ensuring maximum returns to the share holders’ investment, they are also supposed to work within the rule of the law. The financial managers are supposed to see to it that the firm’s social responsibilities to the government are adequately met. If a product has been banned out of the market, the continued sale of the same product in that market may result in expensive regal penalties that can adversely affect the productivity of the firm or even indefinite closure of such a firm.

Financial managers can avoid major financial losses by the extensive search for markets outside the U.S. market. This can be done through the use of promotions and intensive advertisements of their products overseas and better pricing mechanisms. They should however maintain high standards of morals and ethics by explicitly informing their customers of the benefits and dangers of consuming the products. This practice builds trust in customers and hence can boost sales. Mark Hosenball 1979.

Is it still immoral or unethical to dump goods when doing so does not violate any U.S. laws? How about when those receiving the goods know the dangers? Why do you think dumpers dump? Do you think they believe what they are doing is ethically acceptable?

It is not immoral or unethical to dump goods especially when doing so does not violate any U.S. laws. Firms have a social responsibility towards the government to oversee that law and order are maintained. When the government laws are not violated, the firms can be said to be socially moral and ethical. Firms also have a moral responsibility towards their customers. They are supposed to inform their consumers not only of the benefits of consuming the products but also of the dangers and side effects associated with consuming the product. By doing so the firms are deemed to be acting within the accepted moral and ethical standards. Mark Dowie and Tracy Johnston 1976

It is quite clear that most underdeveloped countries lack the necessary industries required to produce the goods they need. Consequently, they lack the capital to purchase quality manufactured products. Through dumping, they can enjoy these products at fewer prices than they would with no dumping. It is immoral and unethical for firms to dump harmful products even if those receiving the goods know of the dangers because those people use the product not because they like it but because of poverty and lack of an alternative. Firms should therefore act morally and offer only products whose side effects are very minimal. Firms that dump harmful products should ensure that the consumers within those countries are fully aware of the hazardous effects of consuming the products. Mark Hosenball 1979.

Firms might decide to dump their products, not because they are banned or of low quality in their market, but due to desire to expand their market. Similarly, firms in developed countries dump products in the low developed country due to technology change and hence those products are no longer in use in those countries. Due to the high level of industrialization, those countries always produce more than enough, and hence they dump to get rid of the surplus. If dumping is done to help the poor nations other than taking advantage of their poverty, then that act is ethically acceptable. Mark Dowie and Tracy Johnston. 1976.

Reference

Mark Dowie, “A Dumper’s Guide to Tricks of the Trade,” Mother Jones, 1979, p. 25.

Mark Hosenball, “Karl Marx and the Pajama Game,” Mother Jones, 1979, p. 47.

Russell Mokhiber, Corporate Crime and Violence (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1988), pp. 181-195. See also Jane Kay, “Global Dumping of U.S.

Toxics Is Big Business,” San Francisco Examiner, 1990, p. A2.

Mark Dowie and Tracy Johnston, “A Case of Corporate Malpractice,” Mother Jones, 1976.

Click Here To Order Now!

Tris-Soaked Pajamas: Production, Prohibitions

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)