Safety Responsibility: Samsung Case

Introduction

Samsung’s market failure caused by the recall of a huge batch of Galaxy Note 7 mobile phones has become one of the most resonant events in the technological environment for the entire existence of digital devices. The spontaneous combustion of gadgets led to damage to smartphone owners’ property and entailed enormous losses for the company since the entire line of the model was recalled, and costs were reimbursed to consumers. In this regard, there is a need to assess the degree of Samsung’s responsibility for the quality of the products they supply and determine which safety policies can be implemented by the management. The obligations of different parties involved will be examined in the context of this market collapse. The Samsung case proves that the mandatory testing of products before selling them to consumers is an integral component of activities in working with potentially unsafe digital equipment.

Moral Responsibility

Since the design of smartphones is a device that includes flammable substances, Samsung has a moral responsibility to test its products thoroughly. According to Jakob et al., such liabilities often lead to losses due to additional costs (p. 138). Nevertheless, in order to maintain the status of a reliable and sustainable company, Samsung’s leadership needs to secure the production process. Testing can imply the professional assessment of all components before the stage of device assembly to exclude manufacturing with defects. Also, the functional state of smartphones should be evaluated after assembly in terms of performance and safety. Otherwise, the case of 2019 may repeat itself, and the company’s current obligations to the owners of its products may increase and lead to serious litigation.

Samsung’s Obligations

Samsung’s obligations differ for various stakeholders and depend on whether consumers are harmed or not. Those owners of Galaxy Note 7 smartphones whose property is damaged due to a proven defect in the design of gadgets have the right to rely on compensation for the money spent. In addition, in case of filing lawsuits, consumers could also win cases because the service life of damaged gadgets was minimal, and the manufacturer’s guilt in violating the safety of device assembly was obvious. Samsung’s obligations to consumers who own the Galaxy Note 7 but have not suffered from the fire of smartphones are to replace or repair free of charge. The resonance caused by the recall of a large batch of goods should be regulated in accordance with the standards of moral responsibility to buyers. Therefore, all involved parties, including component suppliers, are to be checked for compliance with the terms of cooperation.

Checking Suppliers’ IntegrTor to prevent a repeat of the situation with the defective line of smartphones, Samsung should monitor the integrity of its suppliers and verify the functionality of the purchased components. This approach does not contradict business ethics and demonstrates the seller’s responsibility in ensuring the reliability of manufactured goods. Zhu et al. give an example of the Chinese market and note that many manufacturers prefer to work with local suppliers to avoid misunderstandings (p. 343). This aspect applies only to hardware but also software since an insufficiently developed digital base is a significant omission and is unacceptable for entering the market. Therefore, supplier parity control should be part of Samsung’s new safety policies.

Samsung’s Safety Policies

The principle of control over supplier integrity is not the only policy to promote by Samsung’s management in order to avoid similar problems in the future. The company should adhere to an innovation strategy in testing and apply modern and professional equipment that can help identify defects timely. Another proactive policy is to control user reviews on social media. As Kang et al. argue, the public shares opinions on digital products actively, and the customer relations department should monitor the degree of customer satisfaction with the products sold (277). Finally, the organizational culture is to be promoted in the company so that all employees, including engineers, assembly workers, and other personnel, could recognize the importance of responsibility and performiperformmmediate duties professionally.

Key Responsible Parties for the Battery Failure

Since the key cause of smartphone damage is known, those responsible for this omission should be identified to address problems in this sector. Yun et al. state that the battery failure was reported by Samsung leadership as an issue that entailed the recall of the entire product line (p. 6). This means that the parties involved in the production, purchase, and assembly of this defective component of the phones are responsible. Suppliers of components and the purchasing department of the company did not check the quality of the products, and the assembly department allowed defective devices to be released. However, the company’s management also bears responsibility since a corresponding safety policy was not organized in the corporation, which ultimately led to enormous costs, the loss of consumer credibility, and damage to clients’ property.

Conclusion

Mandatory product testing is a necessary measure of responsibility that Samsung should bear to consumers. At the same time, various parties are involved in this market failure, including assembly workers, suppliers, and corporate leaders who did not establish sustainable safety policies. In order to avoid such a situation in the future and gain client trust, Samsung needs to ensure clear control over the quality of its products and pay attention to the technical characteristics of components.

References

1. Jakob, Michael, et al. “Clean up Your Own Mess: An Experimental Study of Moral Responsibility and Efficiency.” Journal of Public Economics, vol. 155, 2017, pp. 138-146.
2. Kang, Seok, et al. “Social Media Posts on Samsung Galaxy Note 7 Explosion: A Comparative Analysis of Crisis Framing and Sentiments in Three Nations.” Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research, vol. 2, no. 2, 2019, pp. 259-290.
3. Yun, Jinhyo Joseph, et al. “Benefits and Costs of Closed Innovation Strategy: Analysis of Samsung’s Galaxy Note 7 Explosion and Withdrawal Scandal.” Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, vol. 4, no. 3, 2018, pp. 1-20.
4. Zhu, Qinghua, et al. “The Role of Innovation for Performance Improvement Through Corporate Social Responsibility Practices Among Small and Medium‐Sized Suppliers in China.” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 26, no. 2, 2019, pp. 341-350.