Introduction
An ethical framework provides an outline for the management of a business organization to rise beyond its moral intuitions and look deeper into the elements of a case. As the chief communications officer of Retail Y, I will examine the proposed deal between our firm and Brand X through several ethical frameworks, such as deontological, consequentialist, and relativist frameworks. I will advise the management to refrain from striking a deal with Brand X based on deontological and consequentialist frameworks. In addition, I will strategize for transparent and clear communication with our customers on why we cannot take the deal with Brand X.
Key Facts, Ethical Issues, and Stakeholder
Brand Y is considering making a deal with Brand X, a supplier of casual clothes for men and women. Some facts around the deal include that Brand Y is in Australia, which has a better living wage than Sri Lanka, where Brand X produces its goods. Second, Brand X creates “fast fashion,” priced cheaply and often updated with new products. Third, while Brand X employs a small number of well-paid designers in Italy, most of its workers are located in a factory in Sri Lanka.
The Sri Lankan workers receive $80 per month on average, which is close to the national average but far less than the living wage. Finally, the factory’s working conditions are hazardous, with very long shifts, few bathroom breaks, and several employee suicides. The plant itself is also poorly maintained and in danger of collapsing. Several ethical issues surround this deal, such as the unsustainable approach to dressing. The other ethical issue is the moral treatment of Brand X’s employees in Sri Lanka. Lastly, Brand Y has an ethical duty to ensure its supply chain is morally and environmentally sound. The key stakeholders in this deal include Y Retail, Brand X, employees of both organizations and their customers.
Application of the Deontological Framework
A deontological ethical approach insinuates that an action can be examined to be right or wrong based on set rules and principles. According to the theory, actions should follow universal moral laws, and people need to do their duties as per the laws (Prabhumoye et al., 2020). One principle that Brand X has broken is respect for human rights. It has subjected its employees to harsh working conditions with low wages. The brand’s Sri Lankan workers have a right to a safe working environment, a living wage that meets their basic needs, and fair treatment.
In addition, both Brand X and Y have an ethical duty to ensure sustainable practices. Production of “fast fashion” clothes involves releasing large amounts of CO2, threatening the environment. Furthermore, the production of one t-shirt consumes about 2,720 liters of water, hence not sustainable. By Y Retail agreeing with Brand X, it will be an accomplice in promoting the abuse of human rights and environmental pollution.
This approach has advantages that make it applicable to this case study. The main advantage of a deontological approach is the provision of distinct moral principles for decision-making (Jennifer & Paras, 2022). By adhering to ethical values and set principles, Y Retail and Brand X will make sure their actions are ethical, responsible, and respectful to all stakeholders. It can improve the long-term viability of the firms and assist in establishing trust and credibility with clients, investors, and the general public.
Furthermore, the deontological approach gives people whose moral standards have been violated a moral basis to protest and seek redress (Jennifer & Paras, 2022). The employees of Brand X have a moral right to forego their jobs and pursue justice by bringing legal action against their bosses.
On the other hand, the deontological framework has some disadvantages. One of the drawbacks of the approach is the failure to account for the complexity of real-world circumstances (Jennifer & Paras, 2022). In the case of Brand X and Retail Y, the trade-offs between environmental sustainability, ethical labor standards, and profitability may be challenging to resolve. Determining which ethical standard should take precedence in these circumstances and how to reconcile the conflicting interests of many stakeholders can be difficult.
A deontological framework may also provide difficulties in enforcing moral standards and holding businesses responsible for their deeds (Jennifer & Paras, 2022). Companies may emphasize profits over moral considerations and engage in immoral acts without robust regulatory frameworks and efficient monitoring procedures.
Consequentialist Framework
It is a robust framework that focuses on the outcomes of an action. According to the theory, a good deed is productive (George, 2022). In this situation, it is necessary to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of entering into a contract with Brand X. A positive consequence of working with Brand X is that both Y Retail and Brand X will financially benefit from the agreement. It may result in more employment opportunities and economic expansion in Sri Lanka. Customers would also have access to reasonably priced and fashionable apparel selections. However, the negative consequences of the deal might outweigh the advantages.
Firstly, there are environmental repercussions due to the “fast fashion” philosophy of Brand X, such as high carbon dioxide emissions and excessive water usage. Secondly, the workers at Sri Lankan firms are given low pay, which goes against the moral standards of equitable and fair compensation. Lastly, the hazardous working environment, lengthy shifts, and short bathroom breaks put the worker’s physical and emotional health in danger.
The framework offers several advantages in the field of business. Firstly, it eliminates the ambiguity in the ethical field (Card & Smith, 2020). Contrary to other ethical systems, consequentialism emphasizes the results of an action rather than its goals or motivations.
Secondly, it emphasizes that morality is made to enrich humans and lessen their sufferings (Card & Smith, 2020). It implies that humans can develop a morality that strives to lessen suffering and avoid damage while fostering flourishing, well-being, and enjoyment.
Lastly, it provides a simple action-guiding principle for all ethical issues (Card & Smith, 2020). The consequentialist framework, for instance, can be applied in business to direct choices on how a company’s activities will affect stakeholders like employees, clients, and the environment.
However, the framework has several disadvantages which limit its application. The main disadvantage is the lack of a moral compass (Card & Smith, 2020). Furthermore, it is difficult to determine all the consequences of an action. Consequentialists must predict the results of their actions and compare them before settling on an optimum path of action.
Additionally, people can justify horrific and outrageous actions using this framework (George, 2022). For example, one might argue that the deal is justifiable since it will result in fashionable products of low prices, increased job opportunities, and profit. In this case, the environmental repercussions and fair treatment of employees will be forgone to achieve the advantages.
Relativist Framework
The relativist framework recognizes the diversity of human nature. The theory holds that morality is a function of one’s cultural norms (Mudrack & Mason, 2020). One behavior could be ethically acceptable in one community but unethical in another. In this case, the perspective of the Sri Lankan workers, the Australian customers, and the Y Retail company is to be considered. Sri Lankan workers may accept low pay, unfavorable working conditions, and risky work environment. However, they would appreciate a reasonable wage, secure working conditions, and sufficient rest and recovery periods. They could also accept prospects for professional advancement and career stability. It is crucial to take into account their viewpoint and human rights.
From the standpoint of Australian consumers, they could value reasonably priced and stylish clothing. They could, however, also prioritize moral and eco-friendly actions, such as ensuring that the people who make the clothing they purchase have access to fair wages and safe working conditions. Consumers could also respect the openness and truthfulness of their business partners. The relativist framework’s pros include considering the perspective and values of all the stakeholders involved (Mudrack & Mason, 2020). It considers the situation’s cultural and social context and accepts that ethical standards and values might vary among cultures and societies. This strategy can aid in fostering respect for diversity and cultural understanding (Mudrack & Mason, 2020). On the contrary, it has cons, such as a lack of reference points for ethical judgment. Furthermore, it can promote cultural imperialism, where the majority’s culture overpowers the minority.
Communication Message
From a deontological perspective, the fashion industry has harmful consequences. The consequences include environmental degradation and exploitative labor practices. As Y Retail, we are committed to ensuring ethical principles such as fair labor practices and sustainable solutions. Therefore, we refuse to compromise our ethical principles and values for financial gain. We call upon Brand X and other companies to follow in our footsteps and prioritize ethics over profit. As Y Retail, we have maintained our ethical standards by ensuring fair working conditions; we offer our employees sick leave, maternity leave, and other relevant breaks.
In addition, we have a guidance and counseling department to ensure the emotional welfare of our employees. Furthermore, we have channels where employees can raise their concerns for consideration by the management. These are universal principles that any organization should practice for the well-being of their workers and a sustainable future.
From a consequentialist approach, the deal will benefit Y Retail and its stakeholders financially. Such benefits include increased profits and potential expansion opportunities. In addition, our customers will also benefit due to the affordable prices that Brand X’s fast fashion approach provides for customers. On the contrary, this deal has negative consequences, such as harmful environmental impacts and poor working conditions for Brand X’s employees in Sri Lanka. However, the negative impacts can be overcome by improving the working conditions of the factories in Sri Lanka and implementing sustainable practices.
According to the relativist framework, we acknowledge and respect the cultural and societal differences between Australia and Sri Lanka. The salary of $80 per month paid by Brand X to its employees in Sri Lanka is close to the national average and may be fair in the local context. However, this wage is far below the living wage and would be considered illegal in Australia. Therefore, we should organize a team to visit Sri Lanka to assist us with a nuanced understanding of cultural differences as we strive to respect local laws and customs and uphold ethical principles. It is because we are committed to ensuring that all employees within our supply chain are treated fairly and with dignity.
Conclusion
To answer the question of whether Y Retail should sign a deal with Brand X, I applied the deontological and consequentialist frameworks. According to the deontological framework, the ethical aspect of an action is determined according to set rules and principles. According to Australian labor laws, employees have a right to paid leave, a safe working environment, and compensation (Schuessler et al., 2019). In addition, the Sri Lankan government has also put labor regulations such as a safe work environment and compensation for overtime work.
On the other hand, according to the consequentialist framework, the negative consequences of the deal outweigh its positive outcomes. The deal’s advantages would include increased profit for both firms, cheaper products for Australian customers, and increased opportunities for Sri Lankan citizens. However, the negative consequences will include increased environmental degradation due to increased emission of carbon dioxide gas and excessive water usage. In addition, the “fast fashion” industry does not encourage recycling; hence, it is unsustainable.
Moreover, the deal will see more recruitment of employees who will be subjected to an unsafe work environment, low wages, and exploitative labor agreements. It will increase the number of people who are subjected to suicide.
Therefore, I would advise Retail Y not to enter into a business agreement with Brand X. I will be open and honest with Retail Y’s consumers about why we chose not to work with Brand X. I will discuss the company’s dedication to ethical business principles and sustainable and responsible activities. This strategy fits within a paradigm of virtue ethics that places a high value on improving moral character and pursuing perfection (Papouli, 2019). Being open and truthful will help our business win the trust of its clients and strengthen its standing as a socially conscious business.
References
Card, D., & Smith, N. A. (2020). On consequentialism and fairness. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 3, 34. Web.
George, A. J. (2022). Ethics, virtues and xenotransplantation. Perfusion. Web.
Jennifer M. B., & Paras B. K. (2022). Deontology. StatPearls [Internet]. Web.
Mudrack, P. E., & Mason, E. S. (2020). A relativistic approach to moral judgment in individuals: Review and reinterpretation. Business ethics: A European Review, 29(2), 403-416. Web.
Papouli, E. (2019). Aristotle’s virtue ethics as a conceptual framework for the study and practice of social work in modern times. European Journal of Social Work, 22(6), 921-934. Web.
Prabhumoye, S., Boldt, B., Salakhutdinov, R., & Black, A. W. (2020). Case study: Deontological ethics in NLP. Web.
Schuessler, E., Frenkel, S. J., & Wright, C. F. (2019). Governance of labor standards in Australian and German garment supply chains: The impact of Rana Plaza. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 72(3), 552-579. Web.