Three actions Company Q could take to improve the company’s attitude toward social responsibility: Company Q has tarnished its relationship with its customers by closing stores in cities with high crime rates. Did Company Q research demographic and location-specific information before investing in the locations that they have elected to close? It seems like rather than acknowledging their unwillingness to deal with the issue at hand, they have decided to close multiple stores. To prevent something like this in the future, Company Q should consider its customer base and how the loyalty of customers would be destroyed by an act like this. Closing these locations also leaves its employees without a job and the community without a local grocery.
Many lost their jobs, and were forced to look for work elsewhere. Numerous people were also forced to leave school to help pay the bills (Doc 1). Herbert Hoover, considered one of the worst presidents ever, did not help the situation very much. In 1930 he said that “The Depression is over.” However, the Depression did not end until 1937 when World War II began (Doc 2). The country was fed up with Hoover’s help.
If they can produce the money over time this way, they shouldn’t lose money over time. It should either balance out or be excess, depending on not only how much you pay per unit, but how much you profit from it as well. 6. A Michigan Court ruled in the 1990s that General Motors did not have the right to close a particular Michigan plant and lay people off. Do you think this ruling benefited the people of Michigan?
All of the small businesses, such as the grocery store, pharmacy, hardware store, and restaurants, would eventually be forced to close. The mom and pop shops wouldn’t be able to compete with the Supercenter. The closing of these stores would have several effects, such as lowering income and cutting ties between owners and employees. The Supercenter would also minimize specialization. The building of the Supercenter would also hurt the environment, by taking away multiple acres of farmland to build on.
No Title In the article “Just Say No” by Bill O’Reilly, he writes about the bailout, or loan, that the major American motor companies Ford, GM, and Chrysler are requesting. He discusses the problem and states that the Federal government should not bail out the auto industry until the unions work out a deal that will benefit the companies, unions, and the American economy. He covers the economy and how it has suffered over the decades because of the business-people being irresponsible and running these large companies poorly, not just the auto industry. From the beginning to the end of the essay, one can tell that Mr. O’Reilly is against the bailout. He starts off reminding the reader about Nancy Reagan, the former first lady, and how she rose up against drug abuse in the late 80’s with the term “Just Say No”.
The guidelines and provisions set within the Ford Motor Company’s agreement with the UAW would bind them legally to fulfilling their obligations. The impact the economy would have on the Ford Motor Company was significant labeling the company, the weakest of the three automakers with affiliation to the UAW (Lucas & Furdek, 2010). During this timeframe, the Ford Motor Company would undergo changes which would present obstacles in regards to legality. In terms of downsizing to cut cost, the company would consider laying workers off and employment termination. However, these lay-offs and terminations would need to be upheld with evidence that would support and justify letting an employee go or the Ford Motor Company could potentially experience
This in itself was an extremely unethical move by the company management team. They reasoned that these tragic results were acceptable by the same federal safety mandates that the company lobbyist’s fought for. Ford Motor Company knew that the federal government was making moves to introduce stricter safety standards for manufacturing automobiles. Under the leadership of Henry Ford II, the company’s lobbyist group went to work to delay the process, and guide the regulators the way the company saw fit. It was the Ford team that recommended, negotiated, and agreed to make safety related decisions on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis.
But it becomes wrong when you are selling your products at such a low price that you put all other companies out of business. When you are using this form of dumping, you put people out of work because their company can no longer afford to keep them on. Either way I don’t see any moral reasoning that would support dumping products overseas if it’s illegal. First you are breaking a law that has been setup to protect people. You are also intentionally causing harm to others, if you follow either definition.
A major negative is that companies aren’t obligated to disclose the chemicals they use for the process meaning if something goes wrong it will be hard to figure out the problem. Because fracking involves pumping a concoction of water, sand and chemicals into the ground to break apart the bedrock, environmentalists and private landowners worry that those chemicals could reach, and poison, the groundwater. In Michigan, 35 million gallons of freshwater are removed from nearby aquifers per frack well. Residents worry that this will deplete freshwater sources and potentially dry up rivers and streams that are key to Michigan’s ecological health. Overall considering both the pros and cons, I believe fracking should be allowed in my state since the pros outweigh the conds.
Fundamental of Business Ethics – 15/09/2013 The “English Patient” and the Chinese takeaway: examining social responsibilities in the MG Rover collapse 1. Set out the main stakeholders in the MG Rover business at the time of its collapse. How would you determine the relative importance of their stake? At time of its collapse, the main stakeholders in the MG Rover were six: the UK government, BMW, Phoenix Four, SAIC, Nanjing Automotive and employees. If we observe the sequence of the events, probably, the most important stakeholder (in negative way) is the UK Government: it was not able to ensure to the employees their workplace and it failed his attempt to maintain BMW at Longbridge.