For example, the excess lead paint over permissible bevels in the toys can cause permanent brain damage and even death. The improper toys’ designs failed to prevent the magnets from falling out which can be swallowed by children. When more than one magnet is swallowed, the magnets can attract to each other and cause Intestinal perforation (or It will develop holes on the esophagi, stomach, and bladder). Although, Mantel made It clear that It demands that the toys that are outsourced to other manufacturers must comply with the safety standards established by Mantel.
Not only that, raw materials that would be used by n outsourced manufacturer should first be sent to Mantel control facility in order to verify they meet all safety standards. However, Mantel has been manufacturing in China since 1959 and has developed a long standing relationship with the Chinese manufacturers which may have led to more relaxed monitoring and control of its operations. Mantel had allowed the local suppliers to implement their own safety testing which resulted in the shipping of tainted toys from the factories in China to children around the world.
The suppliers had started to use cheaper paint which contained lead to reduce manufacturing cost. However, Mantel’s top level managers appeared to be fixated only on the low price of production of the Chinese suppliers. By allowing the quality standards to drop to potentially dangerous levels, Mantel managers focused only on their own self-interests since their performance was directly linked to the financial performance of Mantel.
Therefore, Mantel ignored potential safety issues with the production of the toys in China since lower levels of production or higher costs per unit would have a direct impact on their total level of income for the year. Since Mantel’s name goes on the final product, its managers were accountable for the actions of their suppliers. Therefore, under utilitarianism Mantel did not promote the most happiness to the widest range of relevant stakeholders. Instead, Mantel decision had caused so much pain to the society as a whole because it had a significant impact on life or health of the stakeholders (a. . A children). The most affected stakeholder was the parents and their children. The continuous product recall had tarnished Mantel’s Image and left their shareholders feeling betrayed. Thus, under utilitarianism theory Mantel did not produce the greatest mount of net pleasure to the widest range of relevant stakeholders making society as a whole better off. Thus, Mantel made an unethical decision. But, some people will promote the most happiness to the relevant stakeholders thus at the end of the day Mantel made an ethical decision.
However, the pain that was caused by Mantel overweight the ‘happiness’ of product recall made the decision earlier unethical. Virtue ethics As a toy manufacturer company Mantel’s reputation and public image had been built over many years. This reputation entailed implicit virtues of reliability, righteousness, compassion, caring, integrity, kindness, and responsibility. It does not appear that the decision to market tainted toys, or to stay ignorant on the safety controls for much longer, was based on the consideration of any of these expected virtues.
Thus, under virtue ethics Mantel made an unethical decision which were unexpected by the stakeholders. Demonology Rather than focusing on consequences, demonology examines the motivation of the decision-maker. Whatever decision made by the decision maker which he felt it was right, the decision made will be considered ethical except if the decision made was or his own self-interest. In demonology, what is important is that the decision was made for the right reasons and fair according to decision maker’s motive. The deontological question becomes: 1 .
Was it ethical for Mantel’s top level managers to be fixated only on the low price of production since their performance was directly linked to Mantel’s financial performance and allowed the quality standards to drop to potentially dangerous levels that resulted in shipping of tainted toys to children around the world? Because the decision made was solely based on the self-interest of top level anger’s to maintain their performance since it was directly linked to the financial performance of the company, it is considered an unethical decision. . Should product recall be done whenever toys are tainted due to the carelessness of Mantel’s top managers? It would appear that Mantel would think that it is ethical to recall all their products. If the company did not recall all their tainted products then it would mean that they do not care for the well-being of their stakeholders. From a deontological perspective, product recall should takes place because otherwise Mantel is treating their stakeholders as a means to the company’s end.