Various companies such as food industries are often considered to be significant contributors to public health problems such as obesity and other ailments. However, despite the negative effects of certain products, there is no legal framework established to determine which products are “ethical” to sell to the consumers due to the fact that there have been mixed reactions on the subject of ethics in the production and selling of particular products. The proponents of this subject argue that individuals have the right to risk and that people have a moral expectation of the firms and the freedom to make certain decisions. Moreover, individuals who support the notion that it is ethical to sell products that are harmful to the consumers argue that as long as the risk is not concealed from the person buying the product, then they are morally justified for their actions. The behaviors exhibited in most organizations reflect a split corporate personality since their behaviors of producing and selling products with the aim of making profits drastically affect the health of the consumers (Carroll & Shabana 2010). In this regard, such behaviors can be considered to be unethical since they do not act in the best interest of the consumers. For instance, tobacco companies have made enormous profits from selling their products to the people for years. However, their actions have equally contributed many deaths across the globe due to the fact that the goods produced contain toxic substances that can bring forth complications. As a result of health complications exhibited in most consumers and the suffering they go through, it can be argued that selling of products that are harmful to the public in the hope of making profits is unethical since the move will be a breach of their moral duties.
The mere possibility of corporate responsibility for the health of the consumers seems to have been excluded in the academic public health discourse with different firms continuing to gamble with the health of the public. Organizations selling particular products that have been proven to cause harmful health effects to the consumers have the moral responsibility to the people to ensure that as long as their target is profit-making, they do not do so at the expense of their clients’ health (Moss, 2013). Today, most food processing industries produce and market products that contain excess sugar and fat, yet they understand such compositions can contribute to obesity and other lifestyle diseases. Today, most companies have changed their marketing strategies and practices and are now targeting portion of the population that do not distinguish between truth and fiction (Moss 2013). For instance, although most organizations understand the impacts of high calorie and fats, they engage in advertising activities that are solely directed towards children since they know minors cannot distinguish between the reality and fantasy (Moss, 2013). There have been increasing political activities from various organizations which promote research that undermines public health awareness and further lobbying against certain programs that aim at promoting the health of the public.
All organizations around the world have a corporate social responsibility that should be practiced at all times (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). The production of products that are harmful to the consumers can lead to adverse effects and complications such as cancer and lifestyle-related diseases. In this regard, organizations are expected to possess particular corporate behaviors such as making concrete efforts to contribute to the health of the consumers rather than deteriorating it. In this regard, when companies sell products that harm their clients in the name of making a profit and impressing their shareholders will not be ethical as the social responsibility will be neglected (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). Today, consumers are becoming more aware of the social responsibility of companies and they want to know whether the dollars they pay contribute to their wellbeing and improvement in the health of the greater community. Social responsibility can be described as the commitments or the duties expected from a firm’s to its clients. The consumers expect organizations to fulfill the obligations targeted at minimizing any harms and increasing the benefits of their products to the society. When companies sell products that are harmful to the people, the societal values, which form the fundamental part of human conditions, are broken (Carrol & Shabana 2010). In this regard, when products that harm the consumers are allowed to the masses, certain social norms or values are broken and can be accompanied by a variety of consequences. For instance, societal values such as mores possess greater ethical importance and if broken can bring forth dire impacts to the wellbeing and stability of the society (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). Although companies that violate ethical norms by selling harmful products for profit-making may be amused, it is unethical since it can lead to anger and aggression from the public. Violating the very existence of better and improved human condition through the production of harmful products is not an ethical approach.
When organizations manufacture products that may pose a health risk to the consumers such as the production of toys that contain lead, they go against the principle of normative stakeholder management. The approach states that firms should consider themselves to be duty bound and deeply embed their activities for the wholesomeness and strength of the community in which it exists (Gilbert & Rasche, 2008). The model holds that the interests of the stakeholders possess intrinsic value and should enter into an organization's decision-making process before certain strategic considerations are made. The method guides how a firm conducts its business, in particular with respect to how the stakeholders are treated (Gilbert & Rasche, 2018). In this model, the concept of ethics comes in as a result of the obligations that arise when the decision of an individual or corporation affect others. For instance, when companies manufacture products that may affect its consumers, it implies that they have not taken into consideration the impacts of their decisions to produce the items on their clients; thus this constitutes to the unethical deed. It is quite imperative and unethical when organizations ignore or fail to abridge to the values of the consumers simply because such a move would serve their strategic interests (Gilbert & Rasche, 2008). On a fair contracts approach, Kantian posture, and feminist perspectives, it can be argued that the three moral principles approaches form the foundation of stakeholders’ normative model, which firms that do produce harmful products are violating.
According to “contract view” approach, the consumer is expected to provide the characteristics of the products they have agreed to supply. In this regard, the consumer has the right to receive the product the producers have promised and disclosed any risks associated with the products (Sacconi, 2012). The view holds that neither party should misinterpret the facts nor neither party should be forced or enticed to enter into it. In this regard, the contractual theory of business duties to the consumers holds that an organization's business has four ethical duties that should be fulfilled and breaching the roles would result in unethical practices. The basic duties of the producers should be: avoiding the use of duress and undue influence on the consumers, observing the terms of the sales contract, evading misinterpretations, and informing the clients of the nature of the products that they sell (Sacconi, 2012). When companies adhere to the outlined duties and roles, the business enterprise respects the right of the consumers to be treated fairly (Sacconi, 2012). In this regard, businesses must own and live up to the express claims that they make about their products. Furthermore, firms should carry through on any implied claims they suggest about their products. The claims made should always focus on four main areas of interests which include service life, product safety, reliability, and maintainability. Thus, given by the fact that most businesses today do not inform their consumers of the possible dangers of their products, it can be argued that such behaviors are unethical and unacceptable.
Moreover, today, most companies use various unlawful methods to entice their consumers despite the fact that the products may contain substances such as excessive fats and salts that may lead to ailments such as obesity. Thus, organizations that use enticing methods to get their harmful products bought by consumers will be in breach of one of their ethical duties (Sacconi 2012). Moreover, business enterprises that do not mention the harmful side effects of their products will be acting in an unethical manner due to the fact that they will not have accomplished their ethical duties and responsibilities (Sacconi, 2012). Moreover, according to the contractual theory, businesses should be in a position to offer products that are safe to the public and in no instance should they engage in practices that may harm their client’s health. In this regard, despite the fact that particular corporations such as tobacco companies do offer caution to their consumers, they are endangering the health status of the community, which in return they will be breaching their duties as producers. In addition, certain organizations portray their products as friendly and healthy to the consumers, yet the content is hazardous; this implies that the public may misinterpret the characteristics of the products and may lead to an increase in a number of people purchasing the items. Hence, this approach is not only unethical as a result of the harmful effects, but also because the producers will have ignored the responsibilities bestowed on them towards the community in which they exist.
The due care theory holds that the manufacturers have the duty to protect their consumers from harmful products due to the fact that they have intense knowledge of the products more than their clients (Sacconi, 2012). The manufacturers should adhere to the doctrine of caveat vendor in the sense that the producers should take care of their consumers at all costs and profit-making should not come at the expense of the client’s health and wellbeing. In this regard, the manufactures should never in whatever case harm the consumer (Sacconi, 2012). Thus, they have a role to exercise due care in order to ensure that the users of their products are not harmed, even if they explicitly disclaim such duty. Hence, when manufacturers fail to exercise due care by introducing products that are potentially harmful to the public, they will be breaching the producer’s ethical duties which are expected to be practiced by all business enterprises (Sacconi 2012).
Conclusion
There have been mixed reactions on the subject of ethical issues in businesses for years with different scholars and organizations providing various models and theoretical frameworks to support their stand. However, taking into consideration the recent development and approaches employed by various organizations in a bid of maximizing their profits, it can be argued that the moral principles that used to drive most firms around the world have been neglected. Today, most production companies introduce harmful items into the market and fail to notify the consumers the dangers that such products hold. Instead, the producers have gone a notch higher by targeting vulnerable groups such as adolescents and minors. The manufacturers of various firms are enticing the consumers through attractive advertisements and associated their products with friendship and fun. In this regard, the manufacturers breach the moral duties and social responsibilities expected of them from the society. Given by the health complications that accompany the consumption of such products, the amount of money spent on their medication, and the suffering of the consumers, it can be argued that selling of products that are harmful to the public in the hope of making profits is unethical due to the fact that the move will be a breach of their moral duties.
References
Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International journal of management reviews, 12(1), 85-105.
Gilbert, D. U., & Rasche, A. (2008). Opportunities and problems of standardized ethics initiatives–a stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of business ethics, 82(3), 755-773.
Moss, M. (2013). Salt, sugar, fat: How the food giants hooked us. Random House.
Sacconi, L. (2012). The social contract of the firm: economics, ethics and organisation. Springer Science & Business Media.
