Pointing Fingers

7:40 PM

Yesterday in our business ethics class, we discussed about ethics on consumer production and marketing. It’s really an interesting discussion, because as consumers, it’s really our concern to ensure that the products we buy are safe and durable. That’s why we have trusted brands and preferred products to buy in the market. And if a product we buy is defective or caused us injuries, we appeal to the manufacturer because that is our consumer rights. However, the question is where do the consumer's duty to protect their own interests end and the manufacturer's duty to protect consumers' interests begin? It’s because sometimes we, as consumers, are the cause of our own injuries by using the product incorrectly or irrationally. That is why some producers include in their product labels some safety warnings so that consumers would be aware of a potential harm it can bring.

However, I believe that it is the moral duty of the producers to ensure that their products are safe. It’s because, as mentioned also in the class, it is only the producer who has a full knowledge on its own product. Like for example, in the recent Samsung Galaxy Note 7 issue wherein its batteries are exploding, even if they say that the reason for explosion could be the overcharging of the consumers, it is still Samsung’s fault. It’s because they are the one who manufactured it, they should have tested their products in different conditions before releasing to the public. The public only knows how to use the product but does not exactly care and know how it has been manufactured. That’s why for me, for situations like that, it should be the manufacturer that should be responsible. It’s actually a good decision that Samsung has started recalling and reissuing new phones for those who bought Samsung Note 7, because that’s the ethical thing to do. Even if it’s only the battery that’s causing the explosion, it is still Samsung’s fault, since they’re the ones who manufactured it. After all, the buyers bought it because it’s “Samsung” and not because of a good battery.

Similar to the Samsung scenario is the Ford vs Firestone Case - the case study we discussed in class. In this case, the product Ford Explorer is causing road accidents, and Ford and Firestone are pointing each other as liable for the case. Ford is blaming Firestone, saying that the cause of accidents is due to its tires. On the other hand, Firestone defends it by saying that the poor design of Ford Explorer is the one to blame. Moreover, the government also fails to do its role of protecting the welfare of its citizens by not reacting immediately and just let accidents to take place. Now, the big question is that who is really liable for the accidents?

For me, it is not actually important whose fault is this, since all of them have their own lapses and should respond immediately to the damages they made. But, if I were choose among the three, it will be Ford who is liable for this. People did not buy the Explorer because of the good tires, they bought it as “Ford” Explorer. The whole manufacturing process of the car is designed by Ford, they are also the one who chose Firestone as tire supplier. They should have performed testing of the product before releasing it to public. Although, I understand that Firestone has committed an error with their tires and that the government fails to respond fast, Ford should have ensured the quality and safety of its product.

Then, since I’m part of the interrogating group for this case study, we also analyze this case and below is our group’s recommended course of action:

Ford and Firestone should initiate total recall of defective units, and maintain their partnership by working together in coming up with improved and safer versions of their products.

Instead of blaming Firestone for the accidents, Ford should have recalled their defective units and started the issuance of an improved Explorer that has passed high quality and safety standards. The company should have taken the responsibility for the accidents that happened since they are the ones in charge of controlling the process of manufacturing the Explorer. On the other hand, Firestone should redesign their tires and ensure that it is fit for the Ford Explorer. The two companies should do their product testing and maintain open communication with each other since both their reputations are at risk.

In addition to that, the government should also impose safety standards for car manufacturers and investigate immediately when accidents happen. Prevention is better than cure. In order to prevent future accidents to happen, the government should imposed policies and pay attention to the quality and standards of the products produced by manufacturers.

Businesses should also work together with government, and follow all the imposed policies and requirements. Not just because they might be sued, but because their reputations are at risk and the perception of its buyers are dependent on the quality of the product they produce. Public trust is the key to success in business. That is why, good ethics means good business.