The ethical and social implications in the decision revolve around the fact that Whirlpool did not consider the best interests of all it's stakeholders. The effect on the local community and vendors in Evansville stretches far beyond the effects of just the plant workers losing their jobs. So while the company may have met its economic responsibilities in it's attempt to maximize profits and meet consumer price expectations, it fell short on its ethical responsibilities. 2. Whirlpool has many legal and ethical responsibilities in the plant-closing example.
Export commodities which have been banned from sale in the United States No, a business shouldn’t be able to export commodities that have been banned from the United States. There are reasons that these products have been banned whether its drugs, chemicals or some other product it most likely causes harm to individuals or has some kind of danger to it. Although a company’s main concern is making a profit they still have other responsibilities that also contribute to their profits that they receive. Everything a business does reflects on them in either a good
Wal-Mart’s sales were growing, and that meant that Target’s sales would go down since consumers preferred Wal-Mart for Target. The inability of Target’s managers to identify a solution to the problem of dropping sales and develop a viable course of action also affected Target’s performance. Another micro environmental factor was the thriftiness of customers all over America, which endeared them to Wal-Mart. The impatience of Target’s shareholders and the pressure they exerted on the company’s board to deliver was also a major factor. The marketing strategies that were adopted by the management also failed to turn things around.
When the government prevents prices from adjusting naturally to supply and demand, efficiency is improved in the economy. ANSWER: F TYPE: T KEY1: D SECTION: 2 OBJECTIVE: 7 RANDOM: Y [cxviii]. A market economy cannot possibly produce a socially desirable outcome because individuals are motivated by their own selfish interests. ANSWER: F TYPE: T KEY1: D SECTION: 2 OBJECTIVE: 7 RANDOM: Y [cxix]. While the invisible hand cannot guarantee efficiency, it is better at guaranteeing equity.
The company’s abuse has consequences that turn out to have hidden economical and sociological costs that are not reflected in the market price of the food. The consumers are paying for these unseen costs while four to seven of corporations dominating the meat industry keep getting richer (Food Inc.). The industrial food production process must be seriously examined and improved because the current production system is sacrificing the integrity of our food at the sake of the consumer. The integrity and health of real food could be maintained if our government finally helps our citizens take a stand to end food born illnesses, animal abuse, and obesity that the industrial food market creates. Between the seasonless crops, genetically modified animals and crops, and the mixture of thousands of cows in one hamburger patty, everything about our food is fake.
The only kinds of food that poor people can buy are unhealthy foods from places like McDonalds or Wal-Mart. Lastly, Eric Gimineze believes that the poor are not being paid well enough to be able to actually live. The problem is not that food is expensive, but that the poor do not get paid well enough to be able to keep themselves and their families afloat. Although all three articles offer a solution to hunger, Gimineze presents the best solution with his idea to raise the wages for the poor to livable rates, so that they do not have to struggle to make ends meet. Although Gimineze’s solution is the best, it is not in accordance with the other articles.
The ‘seduced’ consumer is one with no restrictions; i.e. money etc, being a seller’s favourite type of buyer, while a ‘repressed’ buyer may be restricted by money or disabilities etc. This type of buyer has less favour with sellers. A consumer society is still based on inequalities and exclusions (Hetherington, 2009, p30) There is also a minority of consumers classed as ‘oppositional’, this group of people tend to oppose the big supermarkets and retail parks in favour of small businesses, for political and/or environmentally reasons, those who like to buy organic from farmers’ markets etc, “reducing carbon footprint and recycling to create a vision of consumption based more on personal thrift and social responsibility” (Hetherington, 2009, p47-48) rather than being a ‘seduced’ consumer. Supermarkets’ buying power creates a ‘zero-sum’ effect, where not everyone benefits.
Denying entry is also denying the freedom to sell goods and services and to communicate and associate with other individuals in the nation. f. The principle of humanity states that individuals in poverty and in attempt to better their lives are being restricted against their rights as a human being. g. By immigrating individuals are trying to make a better life for themselves and they should not be turned away because they are helping themselves and not requesting help from others, according to the principle of humanity. 4. Economic Arguments Against Open Borders a.
A final area that we will look into is that of a decision made by company Q to dispose of old and expired food products, instead of agreeing to a request of local food banks to donate the items. The reason company Q made this decision, according to their spokesman, was that there was “a concern of lost revenues due to possible fraud, or theft of food by employees and claiming donation.” This is a poor excuse by a company with the resources to enable proper oversight of the donation process. So what can be done? Company Q has 3 examples where a lack of vision and
Instead, a decent government-provided income buys food, and whatever money you have to yourself, whether from more governmental aid, or their own job, is spent on things of want, over need. Despite the ones filing for such aid, in all, I think it’s the governments fault for not taking control of the situation when it’s so easily visible, and for not having enough employers to assist those in need of work. If you can afford even a cell phone at all, you shouldn’t take away from someone less fortunate who might rely on said aid to even provide for