1. Are U.S companies that export used batteries to Mexico and follow local regulations in their recycling acting in a socially and ethically responsible way?
If U.S. companies which export used batteries to Mexico cause serious diseases over children of lead exposure, the export action is not ethical and lacks social responsibility. According to the textbook, New York Times reporters have documentations of lead exposure children because the children are living nearly the plants which recycle batteries by rough technology. The plants also cause a high level of lead pollution into the air and soil around them, so that it will stay subsequent effects. I think the ethical concept is easy to lead arguments. The plants can plead from the gap of regulations in Mexico, or they require a concrete witness which leads the serious diseases, even challenging to proceedings.
2. Should the companies be held to the higher standards the United States demands?
The U.S. companies should follow the United States demands which limit lead pollution, including export batteries and recycled batteries at foreign countries. First, it is a case of ethics and social responsibility. Second, it is a U.S. trade mark which is believed on the world. The belief built is not only the quality but also the source of a product. Customers can boycott the goods whose source is from extremely low pay, 12-hour workdays, labors affected by toxic chemicals, and environment pollution. Although lead pollution only causes disease over children living around the plants, people don't know whether it is the infectious disease or the genetic disease over the next generation. Generally, environment pollution is a global problem, and it doesn't have the border.
Closing Case: Working Conditions in a Chinese Factory
1. What enables the owners of the Metai factory profiled in this case to get away with such awful working conditions?
I think the Metai's owners constrained every unfavorable information of the harsh working conditions to avoid checking of the government. The workers could not contact with the appropriate people to report the harshness of work in the factories. They can be punished or corrupted to keep calm. Moreover, I guess the workers don't have their own labor union which is independent without under a control of the government. Usually, the dictatorial government feared the independent unions because they can topple the government as similarly as the Polish trade union - Solidarity - toppled the Polish communist government in 1989, beginning of collapse of Communism in the countries of Eastern Europe.
2. Should U.S. companies like Microsoft, Dell, and Hewlett-Packard be held responsible for working conditions in foreign factories that they do not own, but where subcontractors make products for them?
I think Microsoft and the other U.S companies are not held responsible because these foreign factories don't work under the U.S. companies' possession and control, otherwise, process under a quality standard and are contracted by these companies. If they buy a part of the factories and participate to control them, their concern and responsibility will stronger, and they can be held responsible for the labor conditions. I think the U.S. companies shouldn't purchase the factories, but they should get involved because of the ethical responsibility and because they have the right to claim the right source for their processed products. They can use their money which is keeping the factories running to get involved.
If U.S. companies which export used batteries to Mexico cause serious diseases over children of lead exposure, the export action is not ethical and lacks social responsibility. According to the textbook, New York Times reporters have documentations of lead exposure children because the children are living nearly the plants which recycle batteries by rough technology. The plants also cause a high level of lead pollution into the air and soil around them, so that it will stay subsequent effects. I think the ethical concept is easy to lead arguments. The plants can plead from the gap of regulations in Mexico, or they require a concrete witness which leads the serious diseases, even challenging to proceedings.
2. Should the companies be held to the higher standards the United States demands?
The U.S. companies should follow the United States demands which limit lead pollution, including export batteries and recycled batteries at foreign countries. First, it is a case of ethics and social responsibility. Second, it is a U.S. trade mark which is believed on the world. The belief built is not only the quality but also the source of a product. Customers can boycott the goods whose source is from extremely low pay, 12-hour workdays, labors affected by toxic chemicals, and environment pollution. Although lead pollution only causes disease over children living around the plants, people don't know whether it is the infectious disease or the genetic disease over the next generation. Generally, environment pollution is a global problem, and it doesn't have the border.
Closing Case: Working Conditions in a Chinese Factory
1. What enables the owners of the Metai factory profiled in this case to get away with such awful working conditions?
I think the Metai's owners constrained every unfavorable information of the harsh working conditions to avoid checking of the government. The workers could not contact with the appropriate people to report the harshness of work in the factories. They can be punished or corrupted to keep calm. Moreover, I guess the workers don't have their own labor union which is independent without under a control of the government. Usually, the dictatorial government feared the independent unions because they can topple the government as similarly as the Polish trade union - Solidarity - toppled the Polish communist government in 1989, beginning of collapse of Communism in the countries of Eastern Europe.
2. Should U.S. companies like Microsoft, Dell, and Hewlett-Packard be held responsible for working conditions in foreign factories that they do not own, but where subcontractors make products for them?
I think Microsoft and the other U.S companies are not held responsible because these foreign factories don't work under the U.S. companies' possession and control, otherwise, process under a quality standard and are contracted by these companies. If they buy a part of the factories and participate to control them, their concern and responsibility will stronger, and they can be held responsible for the labor conditions. I think the U.S. companies shouldn't purchase the factories, but they should get involved because of the ethical responsibility and because they have the right to claim the right source for their processed products. They can use their money which is keeping the factories running to get involved.
