Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Issues
The ethical dilemma faced by Carly LeBlanc is a difficult one. Carly wants to make her boss happy and increase the popularity of Fashionforward! among college trendsetters. Additionally, she is faced with a dilemma on whether to order T-shirts from a low-cost company in China or a fair-trade company in San Francisco. This decision involves more than just what is legal or what is most efficient; it involves a choice between two ‘goods’ or two ‘same’.
LeBlanc must consider the ethical implications of her decision. She must weigh the cost savings of ordering from the Chinese company against the potential damage to her reputation and Fashionforward!’s reputation if they are found to be taking advantage of outsourcing. She must also consider the potential benefits of ordering from the fair-trade company, such as increased customer loyalty and a better public image. Ultimately, LeBlanc must decide what is best for Fashionforward! and her reputation.
Facts
The relevant facts of the case are that LeBlanc is faced with deciding whether to order T-shirts from a low-cost company in China or a fair-trade company in San Francisco. The Chinese T-shirts are cheaper and allow LeBlanc to create a more elaborate design with more graphics and color. However, the working conditions in Chinese factories are often poor, with low wages, rigorous work schedules, and a lack of worker’s compensation and benefits. The fair-trade T-shirts from San Francisco are more expensive, but they are also fair-trade, organic, and eco-friendly.
The individuals and groups with an important stake in the outcome are LeBlanc, her boss, Fashionforward, the Chinese company, the fair-trade company, and the public. The Chinese company and the fair-trade company are both interested in the decision’s outcome. Finally, the public has an interest in the outcome of the decision, as they may be unhappy if they find out that Fashionforward! is taking advantage of outsourcing cheaper t-shirts rather than supporting a U.S. company during the global recession.
The options for acting are to order from the Chinese company or the fair-trade company in San Francisco. The relevant facts of the case include the cost savings of ordering from the Chinese company and the potential damage to LeBlanc’s and Fashionforward!’s reputations if they are found to be taking advantage of outsourcing. The potential benefits of ordering from the fair-trade company include increased customer loyalty and a better public image (Ofurum et al., 2019). The individuals and groups that have an important stake in the outcome include LeBlanc, her boss, and the customers of Fashionforward!. It is unknown if all relevant persons and groups have been consulted or if creative options have been identified.
Evaluation of Alternative Actions
Philosophers argue that the ability to make morally significant decisions about one’s life and the moral right to have those decisions honored are what set humans apart from inanimate objects. Misusing people in ways they did not consent to is an insult to their humanity.In addition to this fundamental right, there are a variety of other rights that are interconnected. Leblanc therefore has the right to what is agreed during the contract.
The rights lens
Regarding honoring the interests of all parties, it is inhumane to use people in ways for which they have not given their permission. LeBlanc needs to think about who or what could be harmed by an order from the Chinese corporation, as well as who or what would benefit unequally (University). She needs to think about whether or not the workers at the fair-trade company will be compensated fairly and have better working conditions as a result of her purchase.
The justice lens
In fairness, LeBlanc should consider whether ordering from the Chinese company would be taking advantage of outsourcing and not supporting a U.S. company during the global recession. She should also consider whether ordering from the fair-trade company would treat people fairly by giving them what they are due regarding wages and benefits (University). Regarding producing the most good and doing the least harm, LeBlanc should consider whether ordering from the Chinese company might produce short-term cost savings but potentially have long-term negative consequences due to public backlash or poor-quality materials.
The common good lens
In terms of serving the common good, LeBlanc should consider whether ordering from the Chinese company would benefit only herself or her company or whether it would benefit the community as a whole (Russell, 2018). In terms of acting as the person she wants to be, LeBlanc should consider whether ordering from the Chinese company would lead her to act in a way that she is proud of or whether it would lead her to act in a way that she is not proud of. She should also consider whether ordering from the fair-trade company would lead her to act in a way that reflects her values and commitment to ethical production.
Care ethics lens
Finally, in terms of all relationships, concerns, and feelings, LeBlanc should consider how her decision will affect not only herself and her company but also all stakeholders involved, including customers, employees of both companies, and other public members (Russell, 2018). By applying these lenses to her decision, LeBlanc can better evaluate which option is best for Fashionforward! and her reputation. Ultimately, she must decide what is best for Fashionforward! and for herself in terms of respecting rights, promoting fairness, producing good outcomes, serving the common good, acting as a person she is proud to be, and considering all relationships, concerns, and feelings.
Option for Action and Test
Based on the evaluation using the Rights, Justice, Utilitarian, Common Good, Virtue, and Care Ethics lenses, the option that best addresses the situation the rights approach. This is because so long as Lblanc is operating under a contract then she meets the criteria under which she was hired. If LeBlanc told someone she respects or a public audience that she has chosen to order from the fair-trade company, they would likely say that it was a wise and ethical decision and that it reflects her commitment to supporting ethical production (Ferrell et al., 2021). To ensure the decision is carried out with the utmost care and sensitivity to the concerns of all parties involved, LeBlanc should make sure she is taking all necessary steps. She should, for instance, make sure she is effectively engaging with the fair-trade firm to guarantee that all materials are of high quality and that workers are paid a living wage and provided with benefits. She must also tell her clientele of her choice and reassure them that Fashionforward! will continue to practice ethical manufacturing.
Implementation
The order that LeBlanc placed with the fair-trade business was fulfilled successfully. Customers were pleased with their purchases, employees were compensated fairly and provided with the essential benefits they required, and the materials used were of a high quality. LeBlanc has learned from this experience that choosing the moral path isn’t always simple, but ultimately worthwhile. She has also learned the value of taking into account the perspectives of all relevant parties and checking that her actions do not violate the rights of others. LeBlanc must remain vigilant to make sure the fair-trade company’s workers are compensated fairly.
References
Ferrell, O. C., & Fraedrich, J. (2021). Business ethics: Ethical decision making and cases. Cengage learning.
Ofurum, U. A., & Odinioha Gabriel, J. M. (2019). Multidimensional ethical dilemmas of contemporary organizations: A literature review. international journal of innovation and economic development, 5(3), 7–18. Web.
Russell, L. T. (2018). Ethical issues of small business owners: A regional perspective and a conceptual framework. KnE Social Sciences, 3(10), 93. Web.
University, S. C. (n.d.). Thinking ethically. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.