Ethics and Moral Rights
The textile industry in Bangladesh employs three million people and makes up 80% of the country’s exports (ABC News 2013). However, there is a history of unsafe working conditions and deaths (Ahmed and Peerlings 2009; Ahmed 2004, 38). A factory collapse recently killed over 1000 workers and as a result, various companies are signing a safety accord (Ferguson and Jolley 2013). This is an ethical decision that can impact those company’s stakeholders. The decision can be made under various ethical models, such as moral rights, social justice (Waddell, Jones and George 2011, 148) and utilitarianism (Duska 2007, 22-25). This paper will argue that the accord should be signed according to the utilitarian model.
The moral rights model argues that decisions should be made to protect fundamental rights of stakeholders and do no harm (Casali 2011, 489). The poor working conditions in Bangladesh violate the concept that workers, who are stakeholders (Phillips 1997, 52-53), have a right to safety (Byrne 2011, 499; Gavai 2010, 13). Inaction will harm workers by failing to improve conditions, which is the purpose of the accord. Under this model, the accord should be signed to protect workers’ rights.
The social justice model argues that benefits and harms should be distributed fairly among all stakeholders (Waddell, Jones and George 2011, 148). The accord will improve working conditions for workers. However, improvements are costly (Ahmed and Peerlings 2009). The increased costs reduce profit and potentially harm shareholders. As such, under the justice model the accord should not be signed as it benefits one group and harms another.
Under classical utilitarianism, the goal is to increase the good or happiness for the largest group (Jones and Phelps 2013, 354). However, the modern interpretation is increasingly moving towards a strategic model aiming to improve profitability (Yim and Fock 2013, 282, 293-294). Companies using Bangladeshi factories and operating in
The moral rights model argues that decisions should be made to protect fundamental rights of stakeholders and do no harm (Casali 2011, 489). The poor working conditions in Bangladesh violate the concept that workers, who are stakeholders (Phillips 1997, 52-53), have a right to safety (Byrne 2011, 499; Gavai 2010, 13). Inaction will harm workers by failing to improve conditions, which is the purpose of the accord. Under this model, the accord should be signed to protect workers’ rights.
The social justice model argues that benefits and harms should be distributed fairly among all stakeholders (Waddell, Jones and George 2011, 148). The accord will improve working conditions for workers. However, improvements are costly (Ahmed and Peerlings 2009). The increased costs reduce profit and potentially harm shareholders. As such, under the justice model the accord should not be signed as it benefits one group and harms another.
Under classical utilitarianism, the goal is to increase the good or happiness for the largest group (Jones and Phelps 2013, 354). However, the modern interpretation is increasingly moving towards a strategic model aiming to improve profitability (Yim and Fock 2013, 282, 293-294). Companies using Bangladeshi factories and operating in