Introduction
Concerning the agenda, the presentation starts with discussing the principles of ethics and describing the organization under research. Subsequently, ethical frameworks are provided and analyzed as per their actual and theoretical application to the case of Boeing. Boeing is one of the largest multinational corporate entities, which primarily specializes in aircraft design, manufacturing, and servicing. In addition, it sells missiles, telecommunications equipment, rockets, rotorcrafts, and other similarly sophisticated technology. The company was scandalously involved in many highly controversial and ethically problematic problems related to crashes. The key focus of the given paper will be the Boeing – 737 MAX-8 Jet death crashes. Additionally, it is important to analyze measures that have to be implemented in order to prevent identical issues in the future. Finally, shortcomings in the company’s internal policies and lessons learned are illustrated.
Defining Ethics
In the field of philosophy known as ethics, conceptions of right and wrong action are systematized, supported, and recommended. The moral judgment-action discrepancy is one of the most critical issues confronting the multidisciplinary subject of social ethics study (DeTienne et al., 2021). Business ethics, by interpretation and definition, relates to the norms for ethically correct or inappropriate behavior in a specific environment, such as an organizational setting or workplace. By defining permissible practices outside of the purview of the state, business ethics can strengthen the legal frameworks to correct incentive patterns of behaviors. A company that lacks solid ethics risks breaking the law, falling into financial trouble, and facing immoral situations. However, a company’s clients, workers, and other stakeholders are assured by strong strategic ethics that it upholds the law and acts responsibly.
Company Review
The Boeing Company is an American organization that develops, produces, and markets aircraft, helicopters, rockets, satellites, networking gear, and missile systems on a global scale. For clients in more than 150 countries, Boeing, a popular multinational aerospace corporation, designs, produces, and maintains commercial aircraft, military goods, and satellite communications (Boeing, 2022). The field of commercial airplanes, aviation, space and safety, and Boeing Worldwide Operations constitute Boeing’s three business divisions (Boeing, 2022). Managerial groups working across the business primarily concentrate on construction and program management, innovation and development program implementation, sophisticated fabrication and production methods, security, financial services, quality and efficiency, and information systems.
Background of the Problem
Two deadly disasters involving the Boeing 737 Max in 2018 and 2019 were linked to a manufacturing error, which prompted the plane to be grounded worldwide. Considering the background of the problem, rather than having to incur the expenditure of retooling, Boeing decided not to produce a new plane due to the enormous and complex plane that they continued attempting to modify (Sofradzija, 2019). These accidents led to the 737 Max’s 20-month suspension, which caused Boeing substantial expenditures (Sofradzija, 2019). From an industrial point of view, the option to utilize software to conceal a dubious hardware architecture may be the background of the problem and the primary issue.
Ethical Dilemma
The ethical dilemma regarding the case of the Boeing 737 Max jet death crash is related to the choice between two possible ways of operating. In this situation, the dilemma is based on the decision to either design and construct new planes or keep the current selection and exclusively continue upgrading the initial aircraft. The moral problem was linked to the assessment of criteria and possible outcomes of specific actions. In the context of Boeing’s business activity, the dilemma was strongly correlated with the firm’s managerial, economic, financial, technological, and engineering functions since the decision directly influenced all departments.
Ethical Framework Employed
Utilitarianism
The first ethical framework that the company apparently employed in making its decision is named utilitarianism. As per utilitarianism, a view on the expenses of moral choice, conduct should be judged based on the amount of profit or damage it does and should take into account the repercussions on all involved (White & Taft, 2004). The objective of utilitarianism is to maximize benefits while reducing costs in order to advance the well-being of all people (White & Taft, 2004). To put it another way, this idea prioritizes the best outcome for the largest number of people over concerns with obligations, rights, or fairness. The core principle of such an ethical framework is an emphasis on the net or total good weighed against the net or total loss. Under such a paradigm, a company, such as Boeing, will only admit its inherent flaws and organizational failure if doing otherwise will result in greater losses in criminal charges and corporate bankruptcy.
Ethical Egoism
The second ethical framework that can be potentially linked to the Boeing company and its actions during the ethical dilemma is referred to as ethical egoism. The maximization of one’s private self-interest is at the center of ethical egoism, but it may additionally extend to a group’s self-interest (White & Taft, 2004). Egoistic selections are made in both situations to deliver the most satisfying outcomes for the person or company making a choice or executing the deed, irrespective of the repercussions for others (White & Taft, 2004). Moral actors should, therefore, behave in their own best interests, according to the normative perspective of ethical egoism. It is critical to distinguish the guiding principles of ethical egoism from utilitarianism. The latter is about the net, or total ‘good’ weighed against ‘bad,’ but egoism is about personal or local gain against losses. They might not be aligned in situations where one’s personal gains are greater when the total gain for all stakeholders is less.
Discussion
In order to describe the connection between utilitarianism, ethical egoism, and Boeing’s case, it is feasible to emphasize the presence of profit, earned value, and cost reduction techniques used by the firm. In terms of utilitarianism, Boeing was able to evaluate its operations from economic and technological perspectives and state that modifying old airplanes would maximize overall benefits. In other words, there is a form of comparative evaluation where a larger range of stakeholders and affected parties are considered and accounted for with the purpose of determining the outcome with the highest net gain in the ethical sense. Concerning the concept of ethical egoism, the corporation, in the case of aircraft crashes, was previously focused solely on decreasing its costs and expenditures by rejecting the opportunity of a transition to new equipment. Thus, the latter ethical framework is more narrowly focused on the local interests of Boeing, with less concern for the indirect implications of such actions.
What to Use
Enlightened Self-Interest
Enlightened self-interest is the ethical framework that the company should have used when the problem arose. According to the ethical theory of “enlightened self-interest,” those who behave in others’ best interests eventually advance their personal benefits. Enlightened self-interest considers the future plans and the well-being of others, taking into account both the immediate and long-term effects of a decision on all pertinent stakeholders (White & Taft, 2004). In fact, this concept could be applied to Boeing by admitting the prevalence of common benefits and wellness over individual or egoistic ones, particularly in the field of aircraft. Enlightened self-interest can be considered a wiser and more sophisticated extension of ethical egoism, where one realizes the interconnectedness and implications of individual gains with others. For example, such a framework would put Boeing in a position of pursuing self-interest in longer timescales, where reputation and righteousness are more important and relevant than short-term loss avoidance.
The Ethic of Care
Another ethical methodology that Boeing should have used during the crisis is the ethic of care. According to the ethic of care, the fundamental values of being accountable for others, upholding relationships with others, limiting damage to others, and taking into account others’ emotions are crucial to ethical action (White & Taft, 2004). When making decisions based on the ethic of care, one pays attention to the particular context and variables affecting the problem, presuming that each scenario is distinct and necessitates a resolution that is situation-specific (White & Taft, 2004). This idea could be used by adopting a more detailed, concrete, and condition-based approach to decision-making.
Problem Avoidance
To avoid this type of problem in the future, the company should implement measures dedicated to rejecting the ignorance of safety requirements and encouraging reporting. It is generally accepted that reporting near-miss security occurrences would increase safety in businesses since it will allow management to recognize and solve potential accident risks (Winkler et al., 2019). The ability of an organization to use near-miss incidents in this manner depends on collaboration between workers, who must properly record such situations, and supervisors, who must support such monitoring (Winkler et al., 2019). Moreover, the application of internal ethical procedures and ensuring automated systems function appropriately can be recommended. In other words, the involvement and engagement of external parties with no vested interests aligned with Boeing need to be able to evaluate and supervise the quality control measures implemented by the company.
In general, the organization possessed its set of policies and guidelines, which included technological verifications and corporate ethical aspects. The disasters were partially caused by Boeing’s lack of clarity on the updated software and insufficient aircraft inspection, particularly during the MAX’s testing (Herkert et al., 2020). Hence, it is possible to highlight that Boeing’s mistake was the absence of a proper level of both internal and external transparency, which was related to specific drawbacks in the certification code. In this case, organizational non-openness has persisted, which prevents the full establishment of the paradigm for access to information. Even today, there is a tendency in some corporations to increase the discretion of management in relation to the application of exceptional cases to the principle of transparency. Unethical delays in the processing of requests are widespread, and provisions restricting the right to access information are widely interpreted. At the same time, failures in the implementation of procedures and constant inertia in relation to requests made on ethical issues are recorded.
Lessons Learnt
Firstly, considering what business leaders in any company can learn from this situation, it can be underlined that it should be prohibited to compromise goods, services, or equipment to reduce expenses. Certification and testing procedures are crucial in engineering due to the link between safety measures and technical compliance (Schabowicz, 2021). Secondly, it is important to note the fact that advanced technological certification networks can work incorrectly, and adequate supervision by officials, as well as transparent internal managerial and employee reporting of safety issues, is demanded. A sense of integrity and unity among technical hardware, software, and personnel should be required. In fact, ensuring the full approval of the principle of transparency, as well as the effective implementation of an ethical framework for access to information, remains a fundamental problem in limiting control and discretion in determining the public interest in an opaque environment.
Conclusion
To summarize, the core decision between two feasible operating models is relevant to the moral conundrum surrounding the Boeing 737 Max fatal disaster case. It is possible to highlight the existence of profit, earned value, and the cost-cutting strategies employed by the company in order to explain the relationship between utilitarianism, ethical egoism, and the Boeing example. The business should put in place procedures to discourage disregard for safety regulations and promote reporting in order to prevent issues in the future. Boeing’s error was connected to particular flaws in the certification code and was caused by a lack of an appropriate level of internal and external openness. One of the most important aspects of Boeing’s ethical responsibility is the direct control of employee procedures. This question refers to a particular type of process in each department where understandings of ethical responsibility, unethical behavior, and the concept of intentionality are not of great importance in the management model.
References
Boeing. (2021). Boeing next-generation 737 [Photograph]. Web.
Boeing. (2022). Boeing in brief. General information. Web.
DeTienne, K. B., Ellertson, C. F., Ingerson, M. C., & Dudley, W. R. (2021). Moral development in business ethics: An examination and critique. Journal of Business Ethics, 170(3), 429-448. Web.
Hemmerdinger, J. (2020). Boeing to restructure, simplify corporate functions amid changing industry [Image]. Web.
Herkert, J., Borenstein, J., & Miller, K. (2020). The Boeing 737 MAX: Lessons for engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(6), 2957-2974. Web.
McCarthy, N. (2019). Boeing facing questions as airlines ground 737 MAX jets [Image]. Web.
Pexel. (2022). Professional stock images [Image], Web.
Schabowicz, K. (2021). Testing of materials and elements in civil engineering. Materials, 14(12), 3412. Web.
Sofradzija, O. (2019). Boeing 737 Max crashes teach a valuable lesson in business ethics. Michigan State University. Web.
Warner Woodworth. (2022). Business ethics [Image]. Web.
White, J., & Taft, S. (2004). Frameworks for teaching and learning business ethics within the global context: Background of ethical theories. Journal of Management Education, 28(4), 463-477. Web.
Winkler, M., Perlman, Y., & Westreich, S. (2019). Reporting near-miss safety events: Impacts and decision-making analysis. Safety Science, 117, 365-374. Web.