essay

 it is about an ethical question. least 5 pages (1,250 words).  double space, 1.25″ margins and 12 pt Times New Roman font 

Choose one of the following two cases from the textbook and apply Catholic social theory to the case you choose.

The Solar Suitcase

The Bitter Internal Drive of Apple

Each student will produce a paper consisting of at least 5 pages (1,250 words). The papers will be typed in double space, 1.25″ margins and 12 pt Times New Roman font. This papers should defend and support an ethical position in relation to one of the cases listed above. The due date for this paper can be found in the course schedule under the final entry.

• In this paper, students should focus on defending and supporting an ethical position in relation to one of the cases listed above.

• The purpose of this paper is to deepen one’s inquiry into the subject matter by arguing for a particular ethical standpoint in regard to one of the cases we have studied.

• This is not a superficial opinion paper, i.e.,what one liked or didn’t like about a particular case, or a simple statement of how one would resolve the case.

• This paper should focus first on demonstrating knowledge of ethical theories and principles learned in this course and using these to defend and support your own ethical position.

• The paper should ethically evaluate the specific case the student has chosen in order to support a particular moral position. In this assignment you are being asked to judge the rightness or wrongness of various options taken by decision-makers in the case chosen.

• You are not being graded on your opinion, or what you liked or didn’t like about a particular case, so spending a great deal of time and space addressing these issues is not going to improve your grade.

• Students should especially avoid sharing their opinions when these are inconsistent with, or contradict the conclusions that logically flow from the position you are defending in the paper.

• Students should avoid attempting to address every theory and principle learned in the class to any given case. This will only result in a superficial evaluation.

• This paper should reflect a serious grappling with the challenging issues raised by these ethical dilemmas.

REL/MGT

 

228

 

Case
 Study
 #1
 

Shell Oil in Nigeria

In the case of Shell Oil in Nigeria, Shell had multiple responsibilities to the country of

Nigeria that were to be both beneficial for the Oganiland communities as well as its government.

Of course this may have appeared to be true for Shell back in 1956, but five decades later

Nigeria has developed into what is believed to be the most corrupt country in the world as well

as one of the poorest. According to a statement by Shell, “Nigeria depends on the oil industry

for 95% of its export earnings and 80% of government revenues, and the Shell Petroleum

Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC) is the largest operator” (Shell). If this were true then

it is safe to say that the majority of Nigeria’s economy is driven by Shell’s oil drilling, whose

moral obligation is clearly simple for their egoistic opportunity.

Throughout the case study article and several other sources across the web, it would

appear that Shell markets their image as a company who influences and supports human rights

and the development of communities. It is this idea that looks as though Shell wants to provide

for the common good while also maintaining consistent profit, which is basically what any other

big corporation would do for itself. It can be thought that providing for the common good in the

business world is sort of the new profit wagon these days in which larger corporations are

beginning to take a ride on because it allows them to play a part in society while receiving

reputable benefits such as brand marketing and free advertising. However in this particular case,

Shell did not show responsibility for the common good of Nigeria because its executives did not

intervene in the tribunal trials of Ken Saro-Wiwa and six others whom were being charged for

murdering several Ogoni chiefs which were suspected of collaborating with the Nigerian

military. This is not to say that the men should not have been punished, but that Shell could have

played a role in the investigation.

Shell also did not provide for the common good because it brought unsustainable

conditions to the Ogoniland environment. The village of Ogoniland was polluted and

overcrowded. Oil spills, flaring and atmospheric discharge from Shell did not help the situation.

Shell believed that their actions and their presence in Nigeria were in the common good of the

Nigerian people even though they were not. Shell should have ensured that the living conditions

of the people in that region were much more sustainable than they were. On the other side, Shell

at the time did do its part by contributing millions of dollars to Nigeria for schools, hospitals, and

other services, but the federal government limited the return to the communities of Ogoniland to

no more than 3 percent, with the remaining to be used by government and military disposal. This

was a huge mistake made by the Nigerian government because they did not provide enough to

stimulate economic growth within Ogoniland. Again if Shell was acting in the common good of

the Nigerian people, they would have ensured that Ogoniland would have seen a larger portion of

their profits by better overseeing how and where their sizable donations to Nigeria were being

disbursed.
 

Shell commonly argued that they felt the Nigerian people would suffer if they were to

leave the area. But in reality the Nigerian military and the Nigerian government are the only two

entities that would incur damages if Shell were to leave. Therefore it was vitally important that

both entities sought protection for Shell’s oil production, which is where all the corruption had

stemmed from.

There were many options on the table in order for Shell to resolve the issue for the

Nigerian people. One of them was that they had the opportunity to take action against the

Nigerian government and it’s military by questioning their economic support over the Ogoniland

region. Agreements could have been established between Shell and the Nigerian government

that could have ordered the protection of innocent civilians within the region. Although the

environmental conditions were already greatly affected by oil drilling, an agreement still could

have been met with certain preconditions that the government must abide by. For example, a

condition could have been made for economical development in the Ogoniland area that shows

consistent and well above standard development within its schools, hospitals, and community

services. Of course this option would appear as an ultimatum to the Nigerian government, but if

Shell’s moral goal was to provide for the common good, then this could have been a reasonable

choice.

On the other hand if an agreement or some type of ultimatum was proposed to Nigeria’s

government, this could have created a risk that could have easily barred them from ever drilling

in Nigeria. Considering the Nigerian government had a 55% stake in the revenue generated from

oil drilling and that it was also their land, they indeed had the upper hand compared to Shell. So

the agreement option may have not been the financially wisest decision to consider since it could

have severely threatened their take in profit.

Another choice Shell could have considered was to employ dedicated members from its

own staff that’s primary purpose could have been to serve and protect the communities of

Ogoniland. These members could have brought direct support in creating better schools and

hospitals, as well as jobs and businesses, thus providing for the common good. However, this

could have been a costly decision that would have taken away from the company’s profits so it is

highly unlikely that such a decision like this would have ever been considered, therefore, making

Shell a company whose only values are what is in the self-interest of the company, money. That

is why my analysis was that they took an egoistic approach to the tribunal trials that would

protect them from any conflict that could damage their relation with the Nigerian government.

Works Cited

Boatright, John. “Shell Oil in Nigeria.” 291-293.

 
http://www.shell.com/home/content/responsible_energy/society/using_influence_responsibly/political
ly_sensitive_regions/nigeria_case_study/
 

 

 

 

In
 the

 

case
 of
 Shell
 Oil
 in
 Nigeria,
 written
 John
 Boatright,
 the
 three
 moral

 

agents,
 whose
 actions
 need
 ethical
 evaluation
 are:
 Ken
 Saro-­‐Wiwa,
 the
 Nigerian
 

government,
 and
 the
 Royal
 Dutch/Shell
 Corporation.
 Possibly
 the
 one
 fundamental
 

issue
 that
 both
 bothers,
 and
 ensures
 the
 continuation
 of
 ethical
 and
 moral
 debate
 is
 

that
 they
 are
 largely
 ambiguous
 and
 seldom
 agreed
 upon.
 However,
 I
 believe
 the
 

most
 effective
 approach
 to
 the
 Shell
 Oil
 in
 Nigeria
 case
 is
 both
 a
 deontological,
 and
 

consequential
 evaluation.
 I
 will
 evaluate
 the
 consequences
 that
 resulted
 from
 our
 

three
 moral
 agents
 actions,
 and
 will
 speculate
 on
 how
 these
 consequences
 could
 

have
 been
 otherwise
 had
 they
 acted
 differently.
 Deontologically,
 I
 will
 evaluate
 to
 

whom,
 and
 what
 these
 three
 moral
 agents
 were
 responsible
 and
 how
 they
 either
 

honored
 or
 neglected
 these
 responsibilities.
 The
 ethical
 evaluation
 these
 two
 moral
 

theories,
 or
 better
 put,
 approaches
 to
 ethically
 evaluating
 morality,
 conclude:
 Ken
 

Saro-­‐Wiwa’s
 actions
 are
 not
 completely
 known,
 and
 therefore
 a
 judgment
 cannot
 be
 

made.
 The
 Nigerian
 government’s
 actions,
 regarding
 Saro-­‐Wiwa,
 because
 of
 their
 

inconclusive
 nature,
 cannot
 be
 judged,
 however,
 their
 military
 actions
 against
 their
 

citizens
 are
 condemnable
 as
 are
 their
 actions
 of
 intercepting,
 diverting
 and
 hording
 

governmental
 funds.
 The
 Royal
 Dutch/Shell
 Corporation’s
 actions
 regarding
 both
 

their
 reluctance
 to
 take
 action
 in
 the
 Saro-­‐Wiwa
 case,
 and
 in
 their
 interactions
 with
 

the
 government
 may
 not
 be
 condonable,
 however,
 they
 are
 not,
 judging
 from
 the
 

information
 given,
 condemnable.
 
 
 

Ken
 Saro-­‐Wiwa
 was
 arrested
 for,
 and
 found
 guilty
 of
 ordering
 the
 murder
 of
 

several
 Ogoni
 chiefs
 who
 were
 suspected
 of
 collaborating
 with
 the
 military
 

government
 of
 Nigeria.
 Though
 our
 author
 Boatright
 depicts
 Saro-­‐Wiwa,
 as
 an
 

advocate
 of
 both
 peace
 and
 nonviolence
 he
 did
 reject
 MOSOP’s
 proposed
 strategy
 to
 

cooperate
 with
 the
 federal
 government
 to
 reduce
 violence
 in
 return
 for
 concessions.
 

It
 is
 this
 detail
 that,
 I
 believe,
 must
 be
 given
 more
 emphasis
 than
 our
 author
 grants.
 

Just
 prior
 to
 the
 murders
 for
 which
 Saro-­‐Wiwa
 was
 eventually
 hanged
 there
 was
 

division
 amongst
 MOSOP
 leadership
 and,
 I
 think,
 it
 must
 assumed,
 at
 least
 according
 

to
 the
 case
 study,
 that
 one
 of
 the
 principle
 issues
 causing
 the
 disagreement
 and
 

division
 amongst
 leadership
 must
 have
 been
 whether
 or
 not
 to
 cooperate
 with
 the
 

government
 to
 reduce
 violence
 in
 return
 for
 concession;
 an
 issue
 that
 Saro-­‐Wiwa
 

was
 opposed
 to.
 We
 do
 not,
 from
 the
 case
 study,
 have
 enough
 information
 necessary
 

to
 make
 a
 concrete
 judgment
 of
 Saro-­‐Wiwa’s
 guilt
 or
 innocence.
 For
 example
 the
 

concessions
 the
 government
 was
 offering
 MOSOP
 may
 have
 been
 hollow;
 however,
 

Saro-­‐Wiwa’s
 noncompliance
 with
 the
 government,
 even
 in
 the
 face
 of
 MOSOP
 

compliance,
 would
 be
 reason
 enough
 to
 believe
 that
 he
 may
 have
 been
 associated
 

with
 the
 organizing
 of
 the
 murders
 for
 which
 he
 was
 executed.
 I
 am
 in
 no
 position
 to
 

make
 a
 determination
 on
 whether
 or
 not
 Saro-­‐Wiwa
 did
 in
 fact
 order
 the
 murders
 of
 

the
 eight
 men,
 however,
 I
 can
 determine
 that,
 with
 the
 information
 given
 me,
 it
 is
 

too
 inconclusive
 for
 me
 to
 assume
 that
 he
 did
 not
 order
 their
 murders.
 I
 believe
 that
 

the
 assumption
 that
 he
 did
 not
 order
 the
 murders
 informed
 the
 actions
 of
 world
 

leaders,
 human
 rights
 activist,
 journalistic
 critics,
 and
 the
 author
 of
 this
 case
 study.
 

Therefore,
 depending
 on
 your
 position
 on
 capital
 punishment,
 the
 Nigerian
 

government’s
 hanging
 of
 Saro-­‐Wiwa
 is
 an
 action
 that
 can
 neither
 be
 condemned
 nor
 

condoned
 because
 it
 was
 an
 action
 taken
 for
 reasons
 that
 have
 not
 been
 made
 clear.
 
 

The
 Nigerian
 government’s
 action
 in
 relation
 to
 the
 execution
 of
 Saro-­‐Wiwa
 

cannot
 necessarily
 be
 condemned;
 however,
 their
 general
 treatment
 of
 their
 citizens
 

is
 condemnable.
 In
 this
 case
 we
 are
 primarily
 concerned
 with
 the
 Nigerian
 

government’s
 action
 involving
 Saro-­‐Wiwa’s
 execution
 and
 their
 relationship
 with
 

the
 Royal
 Dutch/Shell
 Corporation.
 Through
 a
 deontological
 lens
 we
 see
 that
 the
 

Nigerian
 government
 has
 a
 responsibility
 to
 look
 after
 and
 protect
 the
 citizens
 that
 

constitute
 it’s
 country.
 The
 Nigerian
 government
 honored
 its
 responsibility
 to
 

protect
 the
 employees
 working
 for
 the
 Royal
 Dutch/Shell
 Corporation,
 many
 of
 

which
 I
 would
 assume
 were
 also
 citizens.
 Although
 the
 vigilante
 attacks
 against
 the
 

Royal
 Dutch/Shell
 workers
 may
 have
 been
 an
 ill
 advise
 and
 isolated
 instance
 among
 

a
 larger
 more
 ethical
 effort
 there
 were
 people
 harmed,
 people
 who
 were
 not
 in
 

positions
 of
 power
 and
 were
 therefore
 not
 directly
 responsible
 for
 the
 action
 of
 

their
 employer.
 As
 a
 result
 it
 was
 duteous
 of
 the
 Nigerian
 government
 to
 respond
 

with
 armed
 protection
 for
 the
 Royal
 Dutch/Shell
 employees.
 However,
 if
 the
 

government
 did,
 in
 fact,
 take
 these
 efforts
 beyond
 the
 threatened
 confines
 to
 repress
 

local
 population
 these
 latter
 actions,
 unlike
 the
 former,
 would
 be
 ethically
 

condemnable.
 
 

An
 assertion
 that
 can
 be
 made
 with
 much
 more
 certainty
 is
 the
 condemning
 

of
 the
 Nigeria
 government’s
 intercepting
 and
 hording
 of
 funding
 that
 was
 intended
 

for
 governmental
 reinvestment.
 The
 staggering
 gap
 between
 Nigeria’s
 elite
 and
 the
 

poor
 whom,
 according
 to
 1994
 estimates,
 live
 off
 approximately
 $300
 a
 year
 

definitely
 makes
 explicit
 a
 responsibility
 the
 Nigerian
 government
 was
 neglecting,
 

neglect
 that
 is
 worth
 condemning.
 Lastly,
 and
 concerning
 this
 case
 most
 pressing,
 is
 

the
 Nigerian
 government’s
 execution
 of
 Saro-­‐Wiwa.
 As
 I
 have
 mentioned
 earlier,
 

capital
 punishment
 agendas
 aside,
 this
 action
 cannot
 be
 condemned
 or
 condoned
 

without
 first
 evaluating
 and
 determining
 whether
 or
 not
 Saro-­‐Wiwa
 was
 or
 was
 not
 

instrumental
 in
 the
 ordering
 of
 the
 murders
 he
 was
 executed
 for.
 Making
 this
 

determination
 has
 been
 made
 impossible
 both
 by
 the
 unrest
 that
 occurred
 around
 

his
 sentence,
 a
 sentence
 that
 would
 not
 typically
 be
 disputed
 if
 it
 were
 believed
 to
 be
 

rooted
 in
 truth,
 and
 by
 Boatright’s
 description
 of
 the
 jury
 as
 a
 “kangaroo
 court”.
 

Another
 consideration
 highlighting
 the
 inconclusiveness
 of
 Saro-­‐Wiwa’s
 

involvement
 in
 the
 murders,
 which
 may
 actually
 suggest
 that
 he
 was
 indeed
 

involved,
 which
 is
 contrary
 to
 the
 apparent
 popular
 position,
 is
 that
 he
 was
 very
 

strongly
 opposed
 to
 any
 sort
 of
 compliance
 with
 the
 Nigerian
 government.
 The
 

extremity
 of
 his
 opposition
 was
 evident
 from
 his
 disagreement
 with
 MOSOP’s
 

proposed
 cooperation
 with
 the
 Nigerian
 government;
 an
 issue
 that
 created
 division
 

amongst
 the
 leadership
 of
 MOSOP,
 an
 organization
 of
 which
 Saro-­‐Wiwa
 was
 a
 

founder.
 As
 a
 result
 of
 this
 last
 consideration
 I
 do
 not
 think,
 even
 considering
 his
 

previous
 nonviolent
 position,
 that
 he
 can
 be
 ruled
 out
 of
 involvement,
 in
 fact,
 I
 

would
 go
 as
 far
 as
 to
 suggest
 that
 the
 position
 he
 was
 in
 during
 the
 murders
 would
 

make
 him
 a
 very
 likely
 suspect.
 Deontologically,
 the
 Nigerian
 government’s
 action,
 

regarding
 their
 handling
 of
 the
 murders,
 were,
 depending
 of
 course
 on
 the
 validity
 

of
 their
 judiciary
 conviction,
 condonable,
 in
 so
 far
 as
 criminal
 punishment
 is
 one
 of
 

the
 primary
 responsibilities
 of
 a
 government.
 However,
 because
 of
 the
 inconclusive
 

nature
 of
 the
 crime
 I
 believe
 the
 Nigerian
 government’s
 action
 of
 executing
 Saro-­‐

Wiwa
 is
 neither
 condonable
 nor
 condemnable.
 

In
 our
 ethical
 evaluation
 we
 must
 approach
 the
 Royal
 Dutch/Shell
 

Corporation
 differently
 than
 the
 moral
 agents
 previously
 considered
 because
 they
 

are
 primary
 being
 evaluated
 for
 the
 moral
 worth
 of
 their
 inaction.
 We
 must
 ethically
 

evaluate
 their
 intentions
 and
 motivations
 for
 inaction
 and
 can
 only
 speculate
 on
 

what
 influence
 their
 action
 may
 have
 had.
 The
 Royal
 Dutch/Shell
 Corporation,
 

which,
 for
 the
 sake
 of
 convenience,
 I
 will
 refer
 to
 as
 “Shell”
 in
 this
 paragraph,
 had
 

responsibilities
 to
 both
 the
 safety
 of
 their
 employees,
 and
 the
 company’s
 overall
 

well
 being.
 As
 a
 result
 of
 their
 responsibility
 to
 their
 employees
 Shell
 enlisted
 the
 

protection
 offered
 by
 the
 Nigerian
 government
 following
 vigilante
 attacks
 that
 were
 

tied
 to
 the
 MOSOP
 organization.
 Although
 Shell
 purchased
 arms
 to
 aid
 the
 Nigerian
 

government’s
 protection
 of
 their
 employees,
 they
 were,
 allegedly,
 not
 involved
 in,
 or
 

aware
 of
 the
 oppressive
 efforts
 the
 Nigerian
 government
 thereafter
 used
 the
 arms
 to
 

conduct.
 Therefore,
 Shell’s
 providing
 the
 Nigerian
 government
 with
 guns
 is
 not
 a
 

condemnable
 act
 because
 it
 was
 action
 taken
 to
 honor
 the
 responsibility
 of
 ensuring
 

the
 safety
 of
 their
 employees
 and
 the
 oppressive
 consequences
 that
 came
 from
 the
 

Nigerian
 governments
 use
 of
 these
 guns
 cannot
 be
 attributed
 to
 the
 Shell
 

Corporation.
 
 

Shell
 was
 also
 responsible
 for
 guaranteeing
 the
 general
 well
 being
 of
 their
 

corporation.
 Resulting
 from
 this
 responsibility
 Shell
 was
 reluctant
 to
 implement
 

their
 influence
 on
 the
 Nigerian
 government,
 even
 though
 they
 were
 responsible
 for
 

almost
 40%
 of
 the
 government’s
 income.
 Shell
 was
 reluctant
 to
 intervene
 with
 the
 

governmental
 affairs
 concerning
 Saro-­‐Wiwa’s
 execution
 both
 because
 the
 Nigerian
 

government
 was
 a
 55%
 stakeholder,
 and
 because,
 though
 it
 sounds
 a
 bit
 morbid,
 

Saro-­‐Wiwa’s
 execution
 was,
 if
 at
 all,
 only
 loosely
 related
 to
 the
 Shell
 Corporation.
 By
 

definition
 stakeholders
 are,
 “those
 groups
 without
 whose
 support
 the
 organization
 

would
 cease
 to
 exist.”
 This
 definition
 would
 seem
 to
 hold
 doubly
 true
 considering
 

that
 the
 Nigerian
 government
 was
 the
 majority
 stakeholder.
 Though
 it
 is
 arguable
 

that
 Shell
 would
 most
 definitely
 have
 been
 able
 to
 influence
 the
 Nigerian
 

government,
 it
 could
 have
 been
 a
 self-­‐sacrificial
 act
 for
 a
 cause
 that
 was
 too
 external
 

to
 the
 Shell
 Corporation
 or
 any
 conduct
 that
 they
 had
 been
 involved
 in.
 
 

Our
 deontological
 and
 consequential
 ethical
 evaluation
 of
 Shell
 Oil
 in
 Nigeria
 

exposes
 the
 extreme
 complexities
 inherent
 to
 multinational
 corporations
 such
 as
 

the
 Royal
 Dutch/Shell
 Corporation.
 Unfortunately
 these
 complexities
 are
 often
 

missing
 from
 the
 majority
 of
 journalism
 and
 are
 replaced
 with
 that
 author’s
 implicit
 

judgment.
 In
 fact,
 Boatright
 offers
 an
 example
 in
 his
 Shell
 Oil
 in
 Nigeria.
 In
 the
 

second
 sentence
 of
 the
 case
 study
 Boatright
 writes,
 “The
 Nigerian
 junta,
 headed
 at
 

the
 time
 by
 General
 Sani
 Abacha,
 was
 criticized
 worldwide
 for
 bringing
 trumped-­‐up
 

charges
 against
 Saro-­‐Wiwa
 and
 fourteen
 co-­‐defendants
 in
 order
 to
 suppress
 a
 

resistance
 movement
 that
 had
 criticized
 the
 operations
 of
 Shell
 Oil
 Company
 in
 the
 

oil-­‐rich
 Ogoniland
 regian
 of
 Nigeria.”
 Whether
 or
 not
 this
 sentence
 was
 intended
 to
 

influence
 the
 reader
 is
 debatable,
 however
 it
 does
 draw
 a
 misleading
 tie
 between
 

the
 Shell
 Corporation
 and
 Saro-­‐Wiwa’s
 arrest.
 An
 arrest
 which
 was
 for
 his
 alleged
 

involvement
 in
 the
 murdering
 of
 Ogoni
 chiefs.
 Without
 this
 strange,
 and
 rather
 

forced
 connection
 made,
 Shell’s
 actual
 relation
 to
 the
 Saro-­‐Wiwa
 case,
 which
 was
 

minimal
 if
 existent
 at
 all,
 would
 have
 been
 much
 more
 apparent.
 However,
 with
 this
 

connection
 as
 his
 first
 premises,
 Boatright
 goes
 on
 to
 construct
 an
 implicit
 argument
 

against
 Shell,
 often
 quoting
 sources
 that
 were
 critical
 of
 Shell’s
 inaction
 and
 Shell
 

officials
 who
 were
 ill
 advised
 to
 comment.
 It
 is
 also
 a
 bit
 curious
 to
 ponder
 why
 

Boatright
 never
 cites
 the
 Shell
 sources
 he
 quotes,
 while
 he
 makes
 sure
 to,
 on
 two
 

occasions,
 cite
 critical
 sources
 from
 the
 New
 York
 Times.
 Boatright
 concludes
 his
 

case
 study,
 which
 in
 actuality
 is
 more
 of
 an
 implicit
 and
 subtle
 argument,
 by
 noting
 

that,
 “Within
 a
 week
 of
 Ken
 Saro-­‐Wiwa’s
 death,
 Shell
 announced
 plans
 for
 a
 $4
 

billion
 liquefied
 natural
 gas
 plant
 in
 a
 partnership
 with
 the
 Nigerian
 government.”
 

An
 obvious
 implication
 to
 depict
 Shell
 as
 insensitive
 and
 to
 put
 the
 finishing
 touches
 

on
 his
 condemnation
 of
 Shell.
 The
 primary
 reason
 that
 I
 raise
 such
 a
 point
 is
 that
 

journalism
 and
 reporting
 done
 in
 such
 a
 manner
 allows
 people
 sitting
 at
 home
 in
 

their
 armchairs
 to
 make
 quick
 and
 uninformed
 judgments
 about
 world
 affairs.
 

Journalism
 created
 in
 this
 fashion
 fallaciously
 turns
 the
 reporting
 of
 facts
 into
 

didactic
 propaganda
 and
 compromises
 the
 ethical
 worth
 of
 journalism
 as
 a
 whole.
 
 

 

Work Cited:

Santoro, Michael A.. “Case Study: Chrysler and Gao Feng: Corporate Responsibility for

Religious and Political Freedom in China.” 227-229.

O’Brien, Thomas and Scott Paeth. Religious Perspectives on Business Ethics. Lanham,

Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc., 2007.

“Stakeholder (corporate).” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_(corporate)

(accessed 07/09/2009).

 

 

 

Rel228

Paper 3

“Edible Carpets, Anyone?”

A typical capitalist corporation would fall into stage two of Kohlberg’s

Taxonomy of Moral Development, but Interface Corporation was a not a typical capitalist

corporation. By changing the way they did business they moved in to stage three and

their Chairman of the Board, Ray Anderson, can be described as being in stage five.

Interface Corporation also focused on the natural law of ethics to work towards the good

for all people and the environment.

Stage two of Kohlberg’s Taxonomy focuses on “individualism and exchange”.

“The philosophy is one of returning favors—if you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”

(Crain). A business functions to earn a profit. They create a product for the consumer

and the consumer in return pays for that product. Egoism also plays a role in this stage as

the corporation focuses its concerns on earning money. The business’ interest is

concentrated on how to earn a profit, which in turn keeps the business successful.

Interface Corporation completely went against these ideals. Ray Anderson put his

thought of money aside in order to create a sustainable business that focused on

becoming environmentally friendly. Leaving the concern for the consumer’s payment

behind, which would be the exchange in Kohlberg’s Taxonomy, is why Interface

Corporation is not in stage two.

The next stage of Kohlberg’s Taxonomy is concerned with “good

interpersonal relationships” (Crain). There is a belief that “people should live up to the

expectations of the family and community and behave in ‘good’ ways. Good behavior

means having good motives and interpersonal feelings such as love, empathy, trust, and

concern for others” (Crain). In this stage the focus is not just on the individual but also

on others in society. Interface Corporation’s choice to change the way they do business

only benefited everyone in the world and for this reason they fall in to stage three. They

became a company that leased floor-covering services instead of just selling carpet. They

changed their plants to be more efficient and therefore less damaging to the environment.

They made great attempts to eliminate wastes by recycling (DesJardins & Aaron).

Ray Anderson spearheaded the changes to Interface Corporation. He “challenged

Interface’s employees to turn the company into a model of sustainable business”

(DesJardins & Aaron). He knew that by changing the way that the company operated

was risky and expensive. Ray Anderson felt it was more important to create a sustainable

business. A business that was “judged by its performance on three bottoms lines:

financial, ecological, and ethical” (DesJardins & Aaron).

Anderson’s efforts would be considered post conventional by Kohlberg’s

standards. This can be categorized by stage five. Stage five focuses on “Social Contract

and Individual Rights” (Crain). Ray Anderson had a genuine interest in the well being of

the environment. By changing the way the company worked they were being a more

ecologically responsible company. Anderson realized that his company was ruining the

environment and aiding in destroying the world for future generations. He took

responsibility for the way his company did business and made a change. Stage five talks

about what is good for society and that is what Ray Anderson was concerned with.

Thomas Aquinas believed that “the fundamental principle of the natural

law is that good is to be done and evil avoided” (Stanford). Everything natural is good

and anything unnatural is evil. In this case the environment is good and therefore it is

natural. Interface Corporation’s decision to be environmentally friendly created a moral

order. This falls into natural law theory. Interface Corporation chose to be an ethical

corporation by realizing they were contributing to the collapse of our environment. Ray

Anderson knew that he had the power and responsibility to change the way his company

functioned. He could have ignored these ideas and went on making a profit from his

product. He chose to do what was right and therefore what was good. He was following

natural law by doing what was the right thing to do.

Interface Corporation was an exceptional company. Instead of being

classified in stage two of Kohlberg’s Taxonomy of Moral Ethics they made changes to

their company that was better for society as a whole and not necessarily better for

themselves. By thinking out of the box and focusing on society instead of individuality

they moved into stage three. The Chairman of the Board, Ray Anderson, was the leader

of these changes and worked hard to create a sustainable company. His actions were

completely focused on what was good for society as a whole. Thinking and acting this

way can categorize him as being in stage five. He went above and beyond what a

Chairman of the Board would do. He truly cared about stopping the damage that his

company was inflicting on the environment. The environment is naturally good and in

order to apply Natural Law theory, Interface Corporation had to change the way they did

business.

Works Cited

Joe DesJardins and Janalle Aaron. Case Study: Edible Carpets, Anyone!? Interface
Corporation, a Sustainable Business.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The Natural Law Tradition in Ethics.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/

W. C. Crain. (1985). Theories of Development. Prentice-Hall. Pp. 118-136.

http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm