Ethics in Business

Business and Ethics

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 couldn't 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 aren't 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, isn't 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