Business Ethics

In judgment, no one is responsible for the addiction of street children to Resistol products but everyone involved in the situation has either knowingly or unknowingly contributed to the problem. If guilt and responsibility have to be assessed, the first two owners of responsibility in the situation would be the government of Central America which has been unable to develop the region to the point where its inhabitants have a decent education and an opportunity for decent employment. This has contributed to the deplorable condition of many abandoned street children. The second of the two parties mainly responsible for this condition is the parents of the children, particularly the fathers who abandon their parental responsibilities and the mothers who do not practice birth control. However, H. B. Fuller is not responsibility-free but they have gone to extensive lengths to help solve the situation where children being addicted to their toluene-based products are concerned. We certainly cannot blame them for the deplorable economic conditions in Central America. To the contrary, by selling their product to local manufacturers who in turn profit from their manufactured goods they are helping the economy. They have reformulated their product contents to prevent as ready addiction in children. They have paid social workers to help educate street children to the dangers of addiction. They have repack

. . .
known, the company had no ethical responsibility to help prevent the misuse of its products. In my assessment of the case at hand, I believe it did so in many ways. The company even went so far as to stop selling its solvent based Resistol adhesives in Central America, but it did continue to sell them to manufacturers who were willing to purchase them in large tubs and barrels. It appears the company can do no right when it comes to the opinions of child advocacy groups and social workers. The company is held responsible when toluene is still on the streets, “presumably from the suppliers of Fuller’s industrial customers” (Velasquez 4). The company went as far as to restructure the ingredients in its adhesives and this only got them labeled as ineffective and replacing one harmful chemical for another by social workers and child advocacy groups “I doubt the kids are that sophisticated that they can differentiate by odor. If it can get them high, then they will use it…They may have to take more sniffs with cyclohexane than they would with toluene but they still can get the desired intoxication” (Velasquez 5). We can see all the ethical issues raised by this case. Are companies like H. B. Fuller responsible for the impov
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Central America, America Fuller, Resistoleros Velasquez, According Kant, Fullers Resistol, central america, street children, America Velasquez, America According, social workers, child advocacy, Prentice Hall, advocacy social workers, street children central, advocacy social, ethical theory, fuller responsible, children central, child advocacy social, children central america, measure morality, action moral worth, adhesives central,
Approximate Word count = 1358
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Business Ethics