Join us for conversations that inspire, recognize, and encourage innovation and best practices in the education profession.
Available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, and more.
The numbers are in, and executives at Casablanca Cruise Lines (CCL) discover that the company can save as much as 80 million dollars if asbestos is removed from their ships by a company based in the former Soviet republic of Novastan, rather than by a U.S. company. But the Novastani standards of worker safety are far less rigorous. Does CCL help, or hurt, the Novastani people by bringing them this business—and is that question the company’s concern? Panelists struggle to balance the value of bringing badly needed jobs and money to the workers against the price that these workers may pay in health and safety. Does outsourcing such work to developing countries create a “race to the bottom”? Or are lower, but reasonable, standards and pay a key competitive advantage for people trying to lift themselves out of poverty? As Casablanca executives struggle to reach a decision, it becomes clear exactly how difficult this question is.
While executives at CCL struggle with their old ships, the engineers at MaxiCorp have made a huge and exciting technological breakthrough: a device that can double a car’s mileage. However, despite their best intentions, this company runs up against some uncomfortable risks with its new product, including several accidents involving cars using the device. The family of a person who was killed in one of these accidents now threatens to sue. Eventually a story is written about the accidents and the company’s top people need to make some decisions about how to deal with it. How does the company grapple with the risk its clients may be confronting, especially when the company itself is unsure of the degree of risk? How do we as a society decide what is an acceptable rate of failure with new technologies that bring tremendous benefits?
Lastly, we are in the boardroom of a top Internet company, Wowie Info, where the two founders are deciding on where to bring their information portal next. The company already dominates North America and Europe. They decide to look at the Asian country of Jaigunda. But what happens to the values of a company dedicated to the free flow of information, when it comes to a country with a government hostile to the unfettered exchange of ideas? On the one hand, Wowie Info provides a service that could help this nation close its technological gap, encourage innovation, boost economic growth, and perhaps loosen the authoritarian grip of the government; on the other hand, by refusing to do business with a country that embraces censorship, the company could take a moral stand on freedom of speech. Wowie Info decides to move into Jaigunda, and eventually faces demands by the government to hand over their clients’ names and information. They first demand the name of someone who is selling child pornography. Next, they demand the name of a blogger who is writing about police brutality. Both are crimes in this totalitarian country. What are Wowie’s obligations to its shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, and the community, and do they change when the nature of the alleged crime changes?
EXECUTIVE PRODUCER
Richard Kilberg
PRODUCER
Pamela Mason Wagner
WRITER
Carol Shookhoff
SENIOR EDITORIAL DIRECTOR
Ruth Friendly
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Barbara Margolis
BROADCAST PRODUCER/DIRECTOR
Mark Ganguzza
EDITOR
Kerry Soloway
ASSOCIATE PRODUCERS
Joey David
Jason Steneck
PRODUCTION COORDINATOR
Ann Yoo
SCENIC DESIGN
H. Peet Foster
LIGHTING DESIGN
Dan McKenrick
SENIOR AUDIO ENGINEER
Bob Aldridge
ETHICS CONTENT ADVISOR
Lisa H. Newton, Ph.D.
AUDIENCE COORDINATOR
Rachel Ward
SPECIAL THANKS
David Beim
Ronald Berenbeim
Bruce Buchanan
Michael Connor
John Goff
R. Scott Greathead
David Montone
Laura Nash
Lynn Sharp Paine
Sandra Panem
Sandra Pinnavaia
Jane Polin
Peter Ruof
Jeffrey Seglin
S. Prakash Sethi
Allan Sloan
Teresa Tritch
Jake Tapper (Moderator) John Abele Betsy Atkins Joanne B. Ciulla William Donaldson Ben W. Heineman Jr. Lewis Kaden |
Paul Krugman Leslie Lowe William McDonough Nell Minow Joe Queenan Senator Paul Sarbanes Fred Smith Jr. |
||
The video highlight shows our panelists in action. The Discussion Guide frames their debates in contemporary terms, while the Ethics Reader grounds the discussion in the philosophy of the past.
How much risk is too much?
Maxicorp, a private corporation, invents the MaxiMile, a device that doubles automobile mileage. It’s a huge technological breakthrough and a great business opportunity. All’s well for two years as a car manufactured with the MaxiMile, the I-Care Car, sells 950,000 units. The corporation’s enormous investment is on the way to paying off, the investors are optimistic, and the environmentalists are planning the next three projects.
Then an I-Care Car stalls on the highway while doing 85 miles per hour. It is rear-ended, the driver is killed, and the family threatens to sue I-Care Car and Maxicorp. Nine similar accidents occur, but there’s still no proof that malfunctioning MaxiMiles caused the cars to stall.
Maxicorp executives have to decide how to conduct a credible investigation and what to disclose about the accident to the public and business partners. And parents have to decide whether they should stop driving their kids in an I-Care Car based on anecdotal evidence of risk.
Read Text Highlights
Framing This Discussion (from the Discussion Guide)
The MaxiMile scenario illustrates the conundrums and trade-offs typical in debates about product safety. What constitutes statistically acceptable risk? Should we accept more short-term risk to advance a technology that in the long run could help alleviate global environmental problems? How much information about product safety should a corporation disclose to consumers and its business partners? Can a corporation be trusted to conduct fair investigations and tests or should a third party be brought in? How should a corporation manage its public relations? Whom can the public trust?
For a deeper examination of the analysis abridged here, see the Discussion Guide.
Philosophical Grounding of This Discussion (from the Ethics Reader)
Judging by the following passage from Wealth of Nations, economist and moral philosopher Adam Smith would argue that Maxicorp should behave like a person and follow its own self-interest. For Smith, a business’s interest in profit motivates it to meet a consumer’s interests in the value of the product, and it is this tension that inadvertently drives a robust economy.
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. . . . “[B]y directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he [an individual] intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.
To read selections from philosophical texts relevant to this program, see Ethics Reader.
My 16 Days on the HealthSouth Board
Betsy Atkins
A director gives a firsthand account of her brief stint on the board of an embattled company, and explains why she decided to resign after learning that the company’s directors’ and officers’ insurance had been cancelled.
Overcoming the “fear of ethics”
Joanne B. Ciulla, Ph. D.
Why do people think ethics cannot be considered in a business context, and what can be done to correct this misconception?