What Cassandra has written about the business ethics of child labor working in mines is truly shocking and horrifying. To a large extent I would agree that using child labor in such a dangerous occupation is ethically wrong for a business and at the same time morally wrong for a precious human being. Although the mining companies are exploiting the use of child labor to maximize profit, the fault shouldn’t solely be placed on these companies itself but rather on these children as well.

Considering that Africa is one of the world’s most poorest continent, these children have to accept their harsh reality of life. These children were born into a world where survival was not an offering but instead needed to be fought for.  The fact that these unemployed children were willing to face the harsh working conditions of the mines has shown that they are trying to do their best in order to survive.  Whenever an opportunity to at least earn money for survival arises, these children will seize it without hesitation despite the risks because they  never had the luxury of receiving money from their parents but rather working hard in order to get paid. Although they may be digging their own grave, there is no easy escape from such a path, the only way is to strive forward and fight for what they should deserve.

Although we may think that the mining companies are at fault, we should also consider the motivations of these children of wanting to work in such a dreadful workplace in the first place rather than putting the blame directly upon the more powerful and influential party.

According to Milton Friedman, “The social responsibility of firms” is to use its resources and increase its profits as long as it stays within the rules of the game. To some extent i would agree with this statement but businesses cannot just focus on this one specific angle because what makes a business depends on other aspects such as different stakeholders. The effects of the decisions made by firms upon stakeholders will play a determining role in the future state of the firm. Therefore, an ethical decision will comprise of one that considers these aspects, although, often will be ignored by many profit orientated firms.

CVS Caremark, the largest drugstore chain, decided to quit selling Tobacco. In this instance, rather than focusing about increasing profits, it has alternatively become a health care provider rather than a retail business. Considering various stakeholders, manufacturing industries would be rather disappointed, however, their sales will just be diverted to other wanting shops that will buy them. Addicted Consumers may be disappointed but this is paid off by the cessation programs that will help reduce the need of Tobacco and also reduce the individual’s medical costs. Investors benefiting from this decision as it has helped to transform the firm into a potential health care provider which may lasts in the future. Lastly, the firm itself although reduces its profits, has potentially tried to earn revenues in a more ethical way through such smoking cessation programmes.

As such different stakeholders were considered when making such a decision that they are all benefiting in some what way.  A decision that takes the interest of different stakeholders into account and not just the firm’s is what will lead towards success as mentioned by Freeman through the “Stakeholder Theory”. Thus, it can be seen that the firm has indeed made an ethical decision!

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/06/business/cvs-plans-to-end-sales-of-tobacco-products-by-october.html

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!