Precautionary Principle: Is Needed in Order to Successfully Prosper Of course not everyone is in favor of using the precautionary principle because it is questionable as to whether or not it benefits or hurts businesses and people. The precautionary principle “is intended to address credible yet uncertain hazards with severe or irreversible consequences and presumes that information is incomplete or highly variable, making traditional regulatory policy making difficult” (Carlock). This principle could be useful in the fact that it could prevent hazardous instances from occurring. However, individuals could take this principle too far by making it so that businesses unable to startup. An individual could make up a reason as to why a business should …show more content…
This form of precaution is known as the precautionary principle and to ensure that the principle is being fairly implemented, everyone must step back, take a look, and get educated. In other words, everyone needs to conduct further research when determining whether or not a company should be in existence or not. An agreement needs to be made of whether or not the costs outweigh the benefits and a decision can then be made from there. More importantly, these decisions need to be based off of facts and evidence, not personal bias. It is unethical to terminate a company because one individual does not like them. People should not frame a company for an illness when they know it was not the companies fault, but they do it anyway because they know that they will receive money. Unfortunately, there is only a correlation in science and not a cause so it is difficult to know what really cause that, unless further research is done. That is why, once again further research needs to take place to see what really the cause is and what could be the cause. Although, there are many faults to the precautionary principle it still ought to be
I think this unfortunate circumstance has made organizations look close into the products and services they offer. No one wants to clean up a mess that could be easily avoided. Even if they do it as a marketing plan that was found out by the public, it would prove to bring about a negative view of the firm. Also, I think it also stresses how companies influence society and how important it is for them to be responsible.
Deontology theory defines an ethical action as one that adheres to a set of rules and duties. PharmaCARE’s actions are unethical by way of this moral compass because the firm has failed to perform in accordance with one very important duty, the duty to safeguard human dignity and basic human rights. Paying $1 a day to its workers and not providing them with even the most basic of amenities is a gross violation of the firm’s obligation to safeguard human rights, which in itself is a morally required behavior and applicable almost universally. PharmaCARE is not treating the Colberians like the treat their executives, nor are they treating the community there as they treat the communities in the
Large corporations take out life insurance policies on employees that have an increase chance of death. Now the problem with this is instead of a family member being the beneficiary, the company is. These corporations do not inform the employees that they have this life insurance. So when the employee dies, the company gets all the money from the insurance and the grieving family members get none. This act could be justified if the employee agreed on the company taking the life insurance policy and having the company be the beneficiary. The corporations have research who has an increased risk of death in the near future. The corporations pick people that smoke or at a higher risk for a heart attack or stroke or of a certain age. These acts are viewed as unethical, especially by the average ...
...gree and believe that they could get real results if everyone would consistently apply the company’s principles. I have learned personally in the business world consistency means a lot, all employees should have the same consequences. By letting go employees, managers and executives shows that the rules apply to all levels. It will cause everyone involved to have more respect for the company even if they don’t agree with the decision.
In general, most people practice utilitarian ethics and hold themselves accountable for doing the right thing as well as does corporations, businesses, medical facilities, and Public Health service. Therefore, these companies put in writing their company ethics policies and
The second major international environmental conference was held in Rio de Janeiro, in 1992. It was at Rio that the precautionary principle first became known to the public. Called principle 15, the precautionary principle provided that: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation” (p.
Each philosophy provides a clear foundation to decide such actions are right or wrong. Different moral beliefs may oppose assessments of actions. However the entire ethical issues are act ethically according to its own standards. Separate personal interests from an organisation are a great way to avoid conflict of interest for employees. Organisations should avoid possible conflicts of interests when providing employee services (31 financial planners and advisers at NAB suspended/ terminated due to conflict of interest).
Most companies are just out there to make money and not care for the welfare of their employees. It may be difficult to see this as business has always been portrayed as a stimulator of the economy and always on the lookout for its employees. However, this is only because the companies that abide by such practices are given as examples and not the ones that do poorly. We oftentimes complain about the little petty things in life when we should be worried about the people who are suffering in our world. The saying always goes; you never know what you have till it’s gone. Unfortunately, this saying corresponds particularly well this
We need to test our actions against the following criteria is it legal? Does it meet company standards? Is it fair to all stakeholders? Can it be disclosed? A decision making process consists of identifying possible solutions and then considering which of these possibilities has the best potential of solving the problem at hand. To find an optimal solution for a problem, it is important to explore as many alternative options as possible. There are 5 steps in the decision process these are discern the ethical issue, Identify possibilities, determine impact on stakeholders, appraise against ethical criteria and select a viable ethical option. In the disclosure process one would need to explain their reason for the option chosen and if a person can do this in a public forum then they reasonably believe that their choice is ethical.
A Civil Action The movie A Civil Action brings up an interesting idea that many people in the public don't see or hear about very often. The idea that the big corporations often don't take into account the safety of the people that work for them or the people that live around the factories. These big corporations are run entirely by money and the idea of what things will cost and how much money they can possibly make. Too many times money is more important than the lives of human beings and the people that run these places only see in dollars and cents. The moral issues that this dilemma brings up are immense. This has been happening for centuries since the industrial revolution. Workers were subjected too harsh conditions and unsafe factories so that more goods could be produced. They had children as young as seven and eight years old working 15 hour days. In our modern times, toxic waste now plays a big part in the safety of people. The waste that these companies produce and dump under our noses don't seem to bother them in the least. The way microeconomics effects this must be fully explored to realize the way the corporate world thinks and acts. The goal of any corporation is to make the maximum profit that they can providing a good or service to the community while doing it as inexpensively as possible to them. Too many times producing these goods, toxic by-products are also produced.
Precaution has been present at the core of public health safety for centuries, and the precautionary principle is undeniably connected to performing under doubt, which is a common situation in these days.
It seems obvious that large corporations have a tendency to ignore the negative effects of their actions in favor of profit. This example, although sensationalized, still says to me that with power comes responsibility. It affirmed my belief that a corporation’s goal cannot be just to provide profit to shareholders, but there must also be an element of social responsibility.
My paper will show the ethical value in making a decision, right or wrong, that the ultimate result is, I’ll say money. This paper illustrates my opinion in why Harry Stonecipher should have been forced to resign, to save the company name so to say. I’ll talk about the utilitarian and deontological considerations for both parties involved and explain why this decision must have been hard to make.
Morality is the biggest and best reason for this act because people generally want to do the good moral thing. If a person should have to blow the whistle on a company they should know that for every action there is a reaction, and the reaction of whistle blowing might lead to getting fired. One of the most controversial types of whistle blowing is that of impersonal. If a company is making products that are unsafe because they are trying to save a few dollars, an employee could see this as immoral and tell the public about it. The whistle blower would do this based on Kant's theory. It would be following the moral law to do so. If a company is cutting corners and hurting others, it would be morally unacceptable not to blow the whistle on this company. To knowingly let innocent people get hurt because of something that you could have stopped is morally wrong. A lot of people would blow the whistle on a company that is making unsafe products, but not all. A number of people would not inform the public of the company's wrongdoings. They would not do it out of fear that they might loose there job or even be blacklisted from the industry altogether. If they are not fired they will most likely be outcasts at their job and looked over at promotion time.
Systematic risk refers to the risk that faces all the firms operating in a particular industry. Systematic risk is not diversifiable as it comprises of risks that are unavoidable by all the companies in the sector. For instance,these hazards can include such as power shortages, inflation or change in government regulations in a country will definitely affect a company. It is therefore clear that there is no firm in the industry, which can prevent the systematic risks from occurring, neither can the company diversify from the risks (Marshall, 2015).Systematic risk is sometimes referred to as volatility and is measured using the risk factor, known as the Beta. Potential investors can use the weighted beta factor for the businesses operating within a particular sector, to determine whether an investment in a specific industry, is worthwhile (Marshall, 2015).