Resolving ethical business challenges: depth and application in practice

Corporations are responsible for the impacts of its decisions and activities on society, the environment, and its own prosperity (What is Corporate Social Responsibility). The practice of selling contaminated product to a market, regardless of which market it is, goes against a corporation's social responsibility. International markets should have the same respect as the home markets for any corporation. There is also the utilitarianism doctrine that says that virtue is based on utility and the conduct should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons (Utilitarianism). The greatest number of people being served would be the consumers that would consume the products, not the employees in the company. The UN Global Compact also has principles for businesses operating on an international basis. "Principal 1: Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights" and "Principal 2: Businesses should make sure they are not complicit in human rights abuses" (Human Rights, 2009). The practice of selling the contaminated corn to the Mexico market is not supporting human rights and is being complicit in human rights abuses because there is no concern for human health of the consumers that will be consuming products with the contaminated corn. The U.S. Law states that corn contaminated with aflatoxin cannot be used for edible products sold in the United States. By doing so, it would bring about fines to the company.

2. The suggestions in the suggestion box both portray the corporate cultural attitude of doing what it takes to get the job done where employees can keep their jobs, and the moral issue of using contaminated product knowing that it is contaminated and there is a chance of someone getting sick, or even death, with the contamination. Some of the employees are afraid of losing their jobs and only thinking of the financial security where one of them is actually thinking of the moral aspects of the company using the contaminated corn. George must decide whether it is best to help employees keep their jobs at the cost of consumers or not to use the corn for the sake of human health for the consumers. If George uses the corn to produce product, the employees may keep their jobs, but there will the chance of sickness with consumers and the company can get repercussions with fines. If George decides not to use the contaminated corn, employees face layoffs, including him, but consumers would not be put at risk.