From a business perspective, working under government contracts can be very lucrative. In general, a steady stream of orders keep coming in, revenue increases and the company continues to grow. There are a few obvious downfalls to working with government contracts; a higher quality is to be expected as well as extensive research accompanied by accurate and complete documentation are usually required. If one part of the process fails to perform correctly it can cause minor flaws as well a problems that can carry some serious repercussions; For example the case of the failed computer chip at Company X.
When both the employee and company are found at fault, the question arises of how extensive should the repercussions be? Is the company as a whole liable or do you look into individual employees within that company? From an ethical perspective one would have to look at the available information of both the employees and their superiors along with the role of others in the situation. Next you would have to analyze the final outcome from a corporate perspective and then examine the corporate responsibility as a whole in order to find a resolution for cases such as this.
The first mitigating factor involved in the Company X case is the uncertainty, on the part of the employees, on their duties that they were assigned. It is possible that during the testing procedure, an employee couldnt distinguish between the parts they were to test under government standards and commercial standards. In some cases they might have even been misinformed on the final product that they tested. In fact, ignorance on the part of the employees would fully excuse them from any moral responsibility for any damage that may result from their work.
Whether it is decided that an employee is fully excused, or is given some moral responsibility, would have to be looked at on an individual basis. The second mitigating factor is one of threats that an employee might suffer if they do not follow through with their assignment. After the bogus testing was completed in the Company X labs, the documentation department also had to falsify documents stating that the parts had more than met the governments testing standards. From a legal and ethical standpoint, both the testers and the writers of the reports were merely acting as agents on direct orders from upper management.
The writers of the reports were well aware of the situation yet they acted in this manner on the instruction of a supervisor. Acting in an ethical manner becomes a secondary priority in this type of environment. As stated by Alan Reder, if they [the employees] feel they will suffer retribution, if they report a problem, they arent too likely to open their mouths. (113). The workers knew that if the reports were not falsified they would come under questioning and perhaps their job would be in jeopardy.
Although working under these conditions does not fully excuse an employee from moral fault, it does give a starting point to help narrow down the person or department that issued the original request for the unethical acts. The third mitigating factor is one that perhaps encompasses the majority of the employees in the Company X case. We have to balance the direct involvement that each employee had with the defective parts. Thus, it has to be made clear that many of the employees did not have direct involvement with the testing departments or with the parts that eventually failed.
Even employees, or sub-contractors that were directly involved with the production were not aware of the ignorance on the part of the testing department. For example, the electrical engineer that designed the defective computer chip could have stated that it was tested and it did indeed meet the required government tests. Also, for the employees that handled the part after the testing process, they were dealing with what they believed to be a piece of equipment that met government standards.
If the part was not tested properly, and did eventually fail, isnt the testing department more morally responsible than the designer or the assembly line worker that was in charge of installing the chip? In large corporations there may be several testing departments and in some cases one may be held more responsible than another depending on their involvement. A process like this can serve as a dual purpose for finding irresponsible employees as well as those that are morally excused.
The fourth mitigating factor in cases of this nature is the measure of the seriousness of the fault or error caused by the product. Since Company X was repeatedly being added to the list of approved government contractors, one can safely assume that the level of seriousness, in the opinion of the contractor approval committees, is not of monumental importance. Yet a person has to wonder how this case would have been different if it caused the loss of life in a military setting. Perhaps the repercussions would have taken effect much faster and been more stringent.
The fact that Company X did not cause a death does not make them a safe company. They are still to be held responsible for any errors for which their products cause, no matter the extent. As for the opposition to the delegating of moral responsibility, mitigating factors and excusing factors, most would argue that the corporation as a whole should be held responsible. The executives within a corporation should not be forced to bring out all of the employees responsible. A company should be reprimanded and be left alone to carry out its own internal investigation and repercussions.
From a business law perspective this is the ideal case since a corporation is defined as being a separate legal entity. Furthermore, opposition would argue that this resolution would benefit both the company and the government since it would not inconvenience either party. The original resolution in the Company X case was along these lines. The government permanently removed Company X from its approved contractors list and then Company X set out to untangle the web of wrongdoing from within. This allowed for a relatively quick resolution as well as an ideal scenario for Company X.
In response, one could argue that the whole corporation has no morals or even a concept of the word. A corporation is only as moral and ethical as the employees that work for it. All employees, including top ranking executives are working towards the advancement of the company as a whole. All employees, including the sub-contractors and assembly line workers, are in some part morally responsible. Every employee should have been clear on their employment duties and aware of which parts were intended for government use.
Uncertainty is not an excuse for moral responsibility in the case of the workers. Also, the fact that some employees failed to act in an ethical manner gives even more moral responsibility to that employee. While some are definitely more morally responsible than others, every employee has to carry some burden of weight in this case. In fact, when the government reached a final resolution, they decided to further impose repercussions and certain employees of Company X were banned from future work in any government office (Velazquez, 54).
Looking at the case from the standpoint of Company X, the outcome was favorable considering alternate steps in which the government could have taken. As explained before, it is ideal for a company to be able to conduct its own investigation as well as its own punishment. After all, it would be best for a company to determine what specific departments are responsible rather than having a court of law trying to decide which employee is to be blamed. Yet, since there were ethical issues of dishonesty and secrecy involved, Company X should have conducted a thorough analysis of their employees as well as their own practices.
It is through such efforts that a corporation can raise the ethical standard of everyone in the organization. This case brings into light the whole issue of corporate responsibility. The two sides that must ultimately be balanced are the self interests of the company, with main goal of maximum profit, and the impacts that a corporation can cause on society (Sawyer, 78). To further strengthen this need, one could argue that there are very few business decisions that do not have an affect on society in one way or another.
In fact, with the vast number of growing corporations, society is being affected on various fronts; everything from water contamination to air bag safety is becoming a major concern. Every decision that a business makes is gauged by the financial responsibility to their corporation instead of their social responsibility to the local community. This was pointed out on various occasions as the main reason why Company X falsified their reports. The cost of reingineering of the defective part did not outweigh the loss of business.
In the opinion of the executives, they were acting in a sensible manner. After all, no executive wants to think of themselves as morally irresponsible. The question that naturally arises, in debating corporate responsibility, is what types of checks and balances can be employed within a company to ensure that a corporation and all of its agents act in an ethical manner. Taking the example of the Company X case, one can notice many failures in moral responsibility. Company X would have to review its employees, particularly the supervisors, for basic ethical values such as honesty.
For example, ultimately it was the widespread falsification of the testing documentation that caused the downfall of Company X, not the integrity of its imployees. In the outline of the case it is never mentioned that the employees initiated this idea, it would seem that it was the supervisors that gave the order to falsify the documents. Through open communication, a company can resolve a variety of its ethical dilemmas. As for the financial aspects of the corporation, it has to decide whether the long term effects that a reprimand can have outweighs their bottom line.
In other words, corporations have to start moving away from the thought of instant profit and start realizing both the long term effects and benefits. These long term benefits can include a stronger sense of ethics in the work force as well as a better overall example to society. In conclusion, I agree with the use of mitigating factors in determining moral responsibility. A company, as defined by law, is only a name on a piece of paper. The company acts and conducts itself according to the employees that work for it. I use the word employee because in ethical thinking there should be no distinction of rank within a company.
There are times when executives can be held directly responsible and at the same time, there are cases where employees are acting unethically without the executives knowing. Neither title of executive or employee are always morally perfect. Therefore, when a company has acted irresponsibly, its employees must be held liable in a proportionate amount. As for the future of ethics in business I would speculate that if employees started to think more in long term benefits and profits, many of the ethical dilemmas that we face today would be greatly reduced.
As mentioned before, businesses today uses the measuring stick of profitability. We need to stress the importance of placing ethical weight on all major business decisions. Opponents would argue that this is a long term plan that require too many radical changes. Also, there is no way that an industry wide standard can be set due to the vast differences in corporations. In response, I would argue that although there are no industry standards that are feasible, but it is possible for every company to examine their practices as well as the attitudes of their employees.
There will be a number of companies that will defend that are doing all they can to make sure their employees are aware of their moral values. Yet other companies will find that they do have areas that need improvement. It is steps like these that spark change in an organization. Once a few companies start to see the benefits, it can help to encourage other companies to follow suit. After all, as seen in the case of Company X, mistakes in one department can cause the deterioration of an entire corporation. When a corporation realizes the costs involved with decisions such as this, the changes required to rectify are small in comparison.