Monday, April 6, 2020

BOEING: EMPLOYEES MOCKING FAA OVER 737 MAX AIRPLANES (2015-2020)



The Case

For the past 10 months the 737 Max airplane which was developed by Boeing has been grounded with no timetable for its return to the sky. This comes after two deadly crashes of Lion Air flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 in 2018 and 2019 which are responsible for killing a total of 346 people (Schaper, Romo). These crashes are believed to be the cause of the way pilots of the new airline were being trained. Originally Boeing had planned for flight crews of the new 737 max to be trained all through a computer-based system that would be a sufficient way of preparing pilots to make the change from older models of the 737 such as the NG model to the new Max model. A technique that would benefit the company financially. The computer-based system of training pilots and their crews on the 737 Max came as an alternative to flight simulator training for the plane.

However, the pilots and crew training are not the only problem that caused the two fatal crashes of the 737 Max. The primary difference between the older models of the 737 and the newer 737 Max model is type and size of the engine. The 737 Max has an engine that is larger but at the same time this new engine was to be 14% more fuel efficient which would save money for airline companies (Ostrower). Because the 737 Max has larger engines than previous models they could not be placed at the same position on the wing as they would hit the ground while the plane was not airborne. Boeing’s solution to this problem was to simply re-position the engine and have the top of the engine be slightly above the top of the wings of the plane.
Unfortunately, this caused problems for the 737 Max as the engine placement caused for the nose of the plane to be pointed too high in the air which could cause the plane to climb to high and eventually stall which would cause a crash. Luckily, Boeing noticed this issue and implemented a sensor that would be able to detect if the nose of the plane was pointed too high and automatically adjust the flight path back to normal by pushing the plane of the nose downwards. This system was known as the “Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System” or MCAS for short (Ma). However, this MCAS system was faulty as it relied on readings from only one sensor and could malfunction as in the two fatal crashes causing the nose of the plane to point too far down into a declining trajectory rather than simply stabilizing the flight trajectory. There was also no way for pilots to override the system completely and many pilots did not know how to override it at all due to the lack of training the pilots received regarding the new aircraft (Gelles).

The fact that there were multiple issues with the 737 Max at the time of its release raises the question on how the new line of aircraft was able to be approved for commercial use by the FAA or Federal Aviation Administration. Had the FAA regulators responsible for approving the 737 Max been aware of these issues and the potential implications of them they would certainly not have approved the 737 Max to be used in flight.
Even more recently messages and e-mails between employees of Boeing have surfaced which would certainly suggest that many employees were aware of these serious issues that the 737 Max had prior to its launch and eventual grounding. Many of the messages that have surfaced have been messages of Boeing employees mocking other employees responsible for the design and design flaws of the 737 Max as well as mocking the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) regulators who were responsible for approving the 737 Max despite its multitude of flaws. One report of surfaced communications between employees of Boeing found one employee mocking his peers by stating “This plane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys” (Schaper, Romo). This would certainly point towards this employee knowing the flaws that were present in the design of the plane and how the company should have known to fix it.
These reports also show different employees reporting how Boeing covered up these flaws and used deceptive tactics to convince the FAA to approve the release of the 737 Max. In one instance an employee was reported as saying even he could not understand the presentation that was given to the FAA regarding the 737 Max. The presentation was designed to be too complicated so that the FAA officials would not be able to understand it either. The employee was quoted as likening this particular presentation to “dogs watching TV” (Kitroeff). The report also found a different Boeing employee saying in 2018 “I still haven't been forgiven by God for all the covering up I did last year” in regards to their exchange of information with the FAA pertaining to the 737 Max (Kitroeff).

In response to these unfortunate deadly crashes and release of the reports of communication between employees Boeing has employed a few major changes. They released a statement to congress which apologized for their actions. They also claimed that only a small number of employees were responsible for communication with the FAA and that some of these employees were the same ones who made the mocking remarks in the surfaced e-mails and messages (Schaper, Romo). Boeing further stated that they were likely to lose $7.3 billion dollars from the prolonged grounding of the 737 Max (Gelles). Finally, Boeing fired their CEO, Dennis Muilenburg (Kitroeff). Ultimately, Boeing hid information from FAA regulators in order to have their 737 Max airplanes approved for launch when in reality Boeing and many of its employees knew full well the plane had flaws that made it unfit for flight.

Stakeholders
The stakeholders in this case cover a wide range of people from the CEO of Boeing to the unfortunate passengers of the two flights that crashed due to the 737 Max’s faults. The now former CEO of Boeing, Dennis Muilenburg lost his job for the role he played in the company turning a blind eye to the problems of the 737 Max and ultimately causing an untimely death for many unfortunate passengers. The employees of Boeing or at least a small group of them are responsible for using deceptive tactics and lying to the FAA which allowed the 737 Max to pass inspection despite its flaws, many other employees knew about the flaws yet did nothing to alert people. The victims of the crash who lost their lives in the unfortunate accidents as well as their families are the main victims of this case. The FAA was also some form of a victim as they were tricked and lied to in order to pass an aircraft that was not ready for flight and therefore caused extreme tragedy for many. Owners and stockholders of Boeing were not unaffected either as they lost out on $7.3 billion due to the prolonged grounding of the aircraft. Finally, all air travelers were affected in some way as they are now in fear if something like this could happen again in the future.

Ethical Perspectives

Individualist Perspective
The primary values of the individualist ethical theory are to maximize profits as well as staying within the law and not using deceptive tactics. These ideas were founded by famous economist Milton Friedman. He believes the only goal of business should be to maximize profits for shareholders or owners. Friedman’s theory of individualism would certainly claim that this case involving Boeing is unethical. First, Boeing failed to maximize profits for its shareholders as Boeing lost out on $7.3 billion dollars due to the problems with the 737 Max airplanes. Not maximizing profits is just as bad as stealing in the eyes of Friedman and his view on individualism. Secondly, this case would also not be ethical under Friedman’s individualism because he states that businesses must stay within the law and not use deceptive tactics. In this case Boeing both broke the law and used deceptive tactics. They lied to the FAA in order to have a plane launched that was in no way ready for flight. Boeing's lying to and mocking of the FAA also fails to pass the minimum morality model of individualism. The minimum morality model states that not causing harm is obligatory for businesses while preventing harm and doing good are optional and doing good is supererogatory or going above and beyond. Boeing failed to do any of these thus causing them to not be deemed ethical according to this model as they failed to do the simplest of things, not harming people. Boeing caused the ultimate harm to an unlucky 346 people who trusted them to get them to their destination safely. Unfortunately because Boeing lied just to get their plane approved and in the air they caused the egregious death of 346 passengers of their 737 Max airline when on two separate occasions the faults in the plane system, which they were aware of, caused the plane to crash killing all those aboard the flight.

Milton Friedman
Kantian Perspective
The core values of The Kantian ethical perspective are rational decision making, individual autonomy and honesty. This ethical theory was developed and popularized by Immanuel Kant in the 1700’s. A primary belief of Kantian ethics is the formula of humanity which states that all people should be treated as an end and never as just a means to get something else. The actions of Boeing violate the formula of humanity because both the FAA and the passengers of the 737 Max airplanes developed by Boeing were simply used as a means in Boeing’s pursuit of increased profits. Kant also believed that people should be motivated by good will and should do the right thing purely because it is the right thing to do. Boeing violated this in many ways because they did not do the right thing in the first place when they lied to regulators from the FAA just to get a plane approved that they knew was unfit for flight. Because Boeing did not do the right thing they could not possibly have been motivated for the right reasons and rather were motivated purely by self-interest. Finally, Kantian ethics believes that people should have the right and the ability to make their own decisions, however these decisions must be informed ones and all the facts must be provided in order to ensure that the person making the decision is fully informed on the impact of their decision. Boeing violated this when they withheld information regarding the issues of the 737 Max from the FAA regulators who were responsible for deciding whether or not to approve the plane for commercial flight. Boeing did not respect the autonomy of the regulators because they did not give them the opportunity to make an informed and educated decision on the 737 Max. Boeing not only violated the autonomy of the FAA but also all the passengers who boarded a 737 Max flight during the period before they were grounded because these passengers did not have all the information as to the enormous risks they were taking by being on that airplane and had they been provided all the honest information about the plane and its flaws perhaps they would not have made the same decision to take that flight.
Utilitarian Perspective
The primary value of Utilitarian ethics is creating the maximum happiness in all conscious beings. Under this theory businesses should strive to reach the outcome that will maximize happiness for all people that may be affected by their decision. Utilitarian ethics were founded and then popularized by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in the 1800’s. Under the view of Utilitarian ethics, the actions Boeing took in order to get the 737 Max approved for flight as well as after the plane was approved would not be deemed ethical. During the development and approval process of the 737 Max Boeing never intended to maximize happiness for all those involved. They believed by lying and withholding information they could increase profits and thereby maximize their own happiness which is known as Egoism. However, they were not able to even maximize their own happiness because after the issues with the planes were discovered and the second flight crashed all 737 Max airplanes were indefinitely grounded causing Boeing to lose out on a great deal of profits. Boeing did not maximize happiness for the greatest number of people involved as their decisions and actions led to the death of 346 passengers and crew members on the two flights that crashed. They also did not maximize happiness in the FAA as they were deceived into approving the airplane when it was unfit for flight which led to them losing some credibility and being forced to reevaluate their own operations. They also did not maximize happiness among their own employees as they were the home of a toxic work environment where employees who were responsible for designing this plane with its multiple flaws were mocked by their peers in internal emails and messages that surfaced after this case had become public. If Boeing had gone back and focused on maximizing the long term happiness for all those involved in this situation they would have reached a very different conclusion on how to move forward with the production and approval of the 737 Max, for these reasons Boeing’s choices and actions regarding this case would be deemed unethical from a Utilitarian perspective.

Virtue Theory
Virtue theory is the oldest of the four main ethical theories and was first created and used by Aristotle, a popular philosopher in ancient Greece. The primary values of the virtue theory he created is for people to maintain good or virtuous character traits while abstaining from character traits that are deemed to be negative. He believed that if people had good character traits and stayed away from bad ones that the best society as a whole would result. Boeing violated this ethical theory as many of their employees as well as their company as a whole had many negative character traits which led to an unfit plane being approved for flight which ultimately led to loss of life as well as other major issues in the business environment such as loss of profit. Boeing and many of their employees did not have the virtue of honesty as they chose to trick, lie to and deceive the FAA regulators responsible for making a decision on whether or not to approve the 737 Max for flight or not. They also did not employ the virtue of care as they clearly did not care about the safety and well-being of the passengers aboard their 737 Max airplanes as they knew the pane had problems that could potentially be deadly and caused for the tragic loss of 346 lives due to their faulty design and their choice to lie about it. Finally, Boeing did not have the virtuous trait of courage as after these crashes they acted in a cowardly manner and chose to at first remain completely silent about the incident that had occurred. When Boeing finally chose to speak about the tragic accidents that had occurred to two of their airplanes they did not have the courage to stand up and admit their mistakes and take full responsibility for their actions but rather they pushed the blame onto the pilots of the two unfortunate airplanes and claimed that they were the reason why the planes had crashed and that Boeing was not responsible in any way. It was not until further investigations on the two deadly crashes were completed that the true cause of the crashes was revealed as Boeing’s faulty design and manufacturing.

Justified Ethics Review
The actions taken by Boeing in the development and release of the Boeing 737 Max aircraft was not justified in any way. Boeing knew full well the major risk they were taking by releasing an aircraft that was unfit for flight and the numerous amounts of people they were putting in danger. Airplane manufacturers owe it to the millions of people they are responsible for transporting that they will take care of them and get them to their destination safely. Furthermore, Boeing was not ethical as they made fun of others in their own company as well as outside agencies regarding the problems that any employees knew existed in the airplane, however none of them did anything to stop this and many of them actively hid this information from the public. Ultimately, the truth was found out about Boeing’s unethical tactics but is was too late as the problems had caused extreme loss of life on two separate and tragic occasions when these planes crashed killing all those aboard, he flight. Boeing had many ethical issues in this case from, lying to mocking fellow employees, this issue could all have been prevented if the company had done the right thing from the start and not released the airplane into the market until it was truly ready. 

Action Plan
As covered in the case section of the paper, Boeing has been receiving harsh backlash due to the catastrophic failure of one of their most anticipated airplanes, the Boeing 737 Max. The 737 Max was released in 2016 and by 2019 two 737 Max flights had crashed leading to the deaths of all passengers and crew aboard the two flights. These crashes were caused by faulty manufacturing on the part of Boeing. Not only did Boeing know about the issues with the new airplane they had released they also hid these issues from regulators in order to speed up the approval process for the 737 Max. In recent reports of communication between employees of Boeing many instances were found in which employees admitted to not only knowledge of the issues with the airplanes but also how they had hid these issues and made fun of fellow employees of Boeing who designed the plane as well as regulators from the FAA who, despite the problems still approved the plane for flight.
Boeing did not help their situation by any means when after the first crash of the 737 Max they did not accept responsibility and remained silent on the situation. After the second crash of a Boeing 737 Max airplane occurred Boeing attempted to push the blame on the individual pilots of the two crashes for not being able to pilot the airplane correctly in an emergency which caused the crashes and unfortunate deaths of all those aboard the flights. However, The pilots were not to blame for the crashes as Boeing’s manufacturing and lack of information and training was the true cause. In this instance Boeing should have handled the entire situation surrounding the issues with the 737 Max very differently.

To begin, after the first crash of the 737 Max Boeing should have begun to take action rather than stay silent until a second crash occurred. Immediately after the first crash Boeing should have voluntarily grounded the 737 Max and launched an individual investigation into the plane crash and what the causes could have been that led to it. Boeing was certainly in the wrong when they blamed the pilots of the crashes for these tragic events as they did their absolute best to save the plane and all passengers. In this case Boeing should have accepted full responsibility for the crashes as they were fully aware of the problems with the 737 Max airplane and the tragedies that could occur due to these problems. Boeing should have released an apology to all the families of the victims of the two crashes and also provided them with some form of financial compensation for their extreme loss. Furthermore, Boeing owed an apology to the FAA whom they lied to and deceived leading to the approval of an airplane that was unfit for flight. Boeing should also have investigated those responsible for designing the 737 Max airplane as well as those responsible for communicating with the FAA on behalf of the Boeing 737 Max.
Currently Boeing’s mission statement is “Connect, Protect, Explore and Inspire the World through Aerospace Innovation”, I would change this mission statement to focus more on customer safety in response to recent events. Boeing’s new mission statement should be “Leading Innovation in Safety, Comfort and Convenience for Aerospace Design and Development Across the Globe”. This improves on Boeing’s current statement as it makes their intentions clearer and also has safety at the forefront of what they are striving for in their industry.
After these events Boeing also should restructure their core values as the greedy pursuit of profits led to a poorly designed airplane which caused harm to many including themselves. Boeing’s first core value should be customer safety as they failed to put the safety of their customers first which led to the death of over 300 passengers. Their second core value should be honesty as they lied and deceived the FAA just so the 737 Max could be approved faster despite it’s issues. Their third core value should be teamwork as they had a toxic working environment due to employees mocking each other over the design flaws of the 737 Max which led to the two crashes. Their fourth and final core value should be reliability as the forced grounding of all 737 Max airplanes caused Boeing as well as many airlines who use their planes to lose out on large profits because Boeing released an unreliable product.

In order to ensure ethical productivity in the future as well as ensure that an issue similar to this one does not occur again in the future Boeing must make some significant changes. For one Boeing should monitor all emails between employees in order to stop all the mocking and making fun of other employees in order to change their once toxic working environment. Secondly, they should offer a reward to employees who are able to identify problems with their products prior to their release as this would encourage employees to be sure that the products created are the best they can possibly be and prevent unsafe products from being released to the public due to employees covering up the issues. Third, Boeing should force all products to be approved by an internal investigation board or committee before presenting these products to government agencies, such as the FAA, for approval. As a result of this catastrophe Boeing fired their CEO Dennis Muilenberg, although this is a good start more Boeing employees should be fired as a result of this. Boeing should fire all those employees who either mocked their fellow employees or admitted to deceiving the FAA in the reports that recently were released. Boeing should not fire all those responsible for designing the 737 Max as they were likely under much pressure from supervisors and the issues were likely not intentional and the extent of them may not have been known. However, Boeing may need to hire more qualified employees to design airplanes in the future as their current employees did not live up to the expectations the public has come to expect from a Boeing product.

In response to the issues Boeing must take measures to re-market themselves as they have received a lot of bad publicity as a result of these events. For starters, they should release some form of public apology in which they take responsibility for their actions which led to the two crashes. This could be done either in a commercial, press conference or a written statement. Also, once the problems with the 737 Max are fixed and the plane is truly ready for flight Boeing should re-brand it as something other than the 737 Max as there will forever be fears surrounding the name 737 Max due to all the harm it has caused and negative attention it has received. All changes will help Boeing recover from all this negativity as the employees responsible for these problems will be replaced and under new leadership Boeing can focus on what is really important such as customer safety and a positive healthy work environment. Doing this will help to increase the profits of Boeing as people will want to work for a company that cares about its customers which will increase worker productivity and innovation. Also, by putting customer safety first people will be happy to fly with Boeing thus increasing demand for their products and raising profit for the company as a whole.
-Kyle Skerry (WNE '22)



Sources

Ma, Alexandra. “Boeing Is Promising 3 Fixes to the Faulty System behind the 737 Max Crashes to Let Pilots Stop It from Forcing the Plane into an Unstoppable Nosedive.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 9 Dec. 2019, www.businessinsider.com/boeing-737-max-mcas-fixes-2019-12.

Ostrower, Jon. “Boeing: 737 Max Fuel Efficiency Now Seen Gaining 14%.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 29 Oct. 2013, www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-737-max-fuel-efficiency-now-seen-gaining-14-1383067596?ns=prod%2Faccounts-wsj.

Gelles, David. “Boeing 737 Max: What's Happened After the 2 Deadly Crashes.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 22 Mar. 2019, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/business/boeing-737-crashes.html?mtrref=www.google.com&assetType=REGIWALL.

Schaper, David, and Vanessa Romo. “Boeing Employees Mocked FAA In Internal Messages Before 737 Max Disasters.” NPR, NPR, 10 Jan. 2020, www.npr.org/2020/01/09/795123158/boeing-employees-mocked-faa-in-internal-messages-before-737-max-disasters.

Salazar, Heather. “The Business Ethics Case Manual: The Authoritative Step-by-Step Guide to Understanding and Improving the Ethics of any Business.” n.d.

Kitroeff, Natalie. “Boeing Employees Mocked F.A.A. and 'Clowns' Who Designed 737 Max.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 Jan. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/business/boeing-737-messages.html.

Friday, August 2, 2019

JP Morgan Owned Shipping Vessel Seized with $1.3b in Cocaine (2019)


Ethics Case Controversy
On June 17, 2019, the United States Customs and Border Protection seized 20 tons of cocaine which were enclosed within the shipping containers aboard the MSC Gayane in Philadelphia, OA as it travelled from Chile to Europe. This makes it one of the largest seizures of cocaine in the history of the United States. The Gayane is a shipping vessel that is owned by JP Morgan and leased out to the Mediterranean Shipping Company. The 20 tons of cocaine were hidden inside of shipping containers whose seals were taken off and replaced with near identical ones.
The situation and JP Morgan's subsequent silence on the incident has brought up questions on whether the organization was involved with any of the drug trafficking. Because JP Morgan is just the owner, we might want to look at whether the Mediterranean Shipping Company could be at fault here. The case is currently being investigated by the United States Government.

Stakeholders
The stakeholders in this case would be: JP Morgan, the Mediterranean Shipping Company, drug dealers, and cocaine users. Since the Gayane is a vessel owned by JP Morgan, any wrong doings will be connected back to them. JP Morgan needs to make sure it has control over the types of operations occurring on board to prevent scandals that can cost a fortune.

Individualism
An Individualist would view JP Morgan's conduct as ethical as the organization was not knowingly engaging in drug trafficking. Individualism is the idea that businesses should be focused on making as much profit but doing so legally (Salazar 17). Because JP Morgan is leasing the vessel to another organization, they are receiving payments for principal plus interest. They aren't receiving money from the transportation of drugs. According to a July 2019 Wall Street Journal article, the people profiting from this were the ones getting cocaine on board (Paris).

Utilitarianism
A Utilitarian could view this as unethical when taking the lack of reaction by JP Morgan into account. Utilitarianism is the theory that a business decision should be made to make sure the happiness of everyone affected is maximized (Salazar 19). Because JP Morgan only owns the ship, they are not the ones responsible for loading cargo and transporting it. When a situation like a giant drug bust occurs and your name is attached to the scandal, you would want to respond and clear your name. However, JP Morgan hasn't done so. This can lead to the general public or shareholders to be disgruntled because they want to know what the company has to say about it.

Kantianism
A Kantian would view JP Morgan as ethical in this situation. In Kantianism, a decision is made rationally and with respect for everyone involved (Salazar 20). JP Morgan made a decision to go with one of the top shipping companies in the world because the chances they would allow something like this to occur is very slim. Even though drug trafficking through shipping vessels is on the rise, it would be unreasonable to call out an organization for using a ship. Within Kantianism is the formula of humanity. It states that it is "wrong to use people as mere means to get what you want" (Salazar 22). JP Morgan does not violate the formula of humanity in this case as they were just conducting a normal business deal, not trying to pull a fast one on the shipping company. Also included in Kantianism is the motivation of an organization. The motivation of JP Morgan would be neutral as they were thinking that their ship was being used for normal business use.

Virtue Theory
Virtue Theorists would likely not view this as ethical mainly because of the reaction by JP Morgan. Virtue Theory is an ethical theory based on someone's character. The four main virtues are: courage, honesty, temperance, and justice. Being courageous means that you can stand up for what is right. In this case, JP Morgan failed to showcase this by not taking action after the incident. They have stayed silent on the issue, where they very well could have sent out a press release or talk to the shipping company about a possible solution. JP Morgan has not talked about this situation which puts them in an unfavorable position in the honest category. Once again, had they released a statement saying they're looking in to the situation, they would have shown honesty. JP Morgan has shown the characteristic of temperance, which is to have realistic expectations. When JP Morgan leased out their vessel, their expectations were to receive payments.. Thats all they wanted from the deal; they had no idea that the transportation of drugs was occurring. JP Morgan has overall been just in their intentions with the vessel, just not on providing updates about the situation.

Justified Ethics Evaluation
I do not think JP Morgan has committed any wrong doing during this incident. They are just the owners of the ship and decided to lease it out for a shipping company to use. JP Morgan did not hire the crew that brought the cocaine aboard. I think that JP Morgan could have talked about it a little bit to show they aren't just ignoring it. JP Morgan could also talk to the shipping company about possible changes to how they handle the ship. The company acted ethically throughout the entire incident.

P. Perzanowski

References

Brito, Christopher, and Jason Silverstein. “Ship Seized in $1.3 Billion Cocaine Bust Is Owned by
JP Morgan Chase.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 11 July 2019,
www.cbsnews.com/news/ship-seized-in-1-3-billion-cocaine-bust-is-owned-by-jp-morgan
-chase/.
Mohamed, Theron. “4 Surprising Facts about the $1 Billion Worth of Cocaine Found on a Ship
Owned by JPMorgan | Markets Insider.” Business Insider, Business Insider,
markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/cocaine-ship-jpmorgan-boat-liberian-flag-1-bill
ion-drugs-surprising-2019-7-1028346364#the-sheer-quantity-of-cocaine1.
Paris, Costas. “Inside Shipping's Record Cocaine Bust.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones &
Company, 24 July 2019,
www.wsj.com/articles/inside-shippings-record-cocaine-bust-11563960604.
Salazar, Heather. The Business Ethics Case Manual.
Sandler, Rachel. “U.S. Authorities Seize 20 Tons Of Cocaine From Ship Owned By JP Morgan.”
Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 12 July 2019,
www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2019/07/11/us-authorities-seize-20-tons-of-cocaine-f
rom-ship-owned-by-jp-morgan/#5e1441e2ea33.

Apple: Mac Production Moved to China (June 3, 2019-)


Ethics Case Controversy

Apple Technology decided to move Apple Mac Pro production to China. Mac Pro production was announced June 3, 2019 at the 2019 Apple World Developers Conference at the San Jose Convention Center in San Jose, California (Schwartz & Gurman 1). Apple had previously released in 2013 that the Mac productions would take place in the United States as part of their patriotic campaign. The announcement has come while China and the United States are currently in the middle of a trade war. Trump had raised the tariff on Chinese imported goods to 25% on May 10, 2019 (“China to Increase Tariffs on $60bn Worth of US Goods” 1). There is currently no resolution to the trade war.


The Chinese factory employees working at Apple’s Catcher factory are exposed to unsafe working environments and not given enough safety equipment. They work extra hours for little pay. The dormitories provided by the company have no running water and few showers, resulting in many workers not bathing (Maggio 1). Workers lose around $76.57 United States dollars every month due to working overtime. Additionally, when employees resign they receive their final paycheck the fifth of the month, regardless of when they resign. Also, workers are not given any hands-on safety training. They are expected to read about safety procedures without getting any practice. The factory does not provide goggles or face shields to workers, making it dangerous for them when operating machinery. Chinese employees are not receiving their rights to a safe and healthy working environment nor their rights to fair wages (“Apple’s Failed CSR Audit” 5).

Stakeholders
Apple’s stakeholders include the upper-management, the supervisors, the customers who buy their products, business entities, the community,  the Employees who work for Apple, and the environment ("Intro" 5). Also included as stakeholders would be the peer companies and the stockholders.  Some peer companies include Quanta Computer Inc and Catcher technology Co., where the Mac Pros are being made. ( “Apple's Failed CSR Audit 1) (Gurman 1). The stockholders include Arthur Levingston, Tim Cook, who is also CEO, Craig Federighi, and The Vanguard Group and Blackrock. Arthur Levingston is the largest stockholder with 1.16 million shares, Tim Cook is the second largest stockholder with 901, 474 shares, Craig Federighi is the third largest stockholder with 460, 367 shares, and the Vanguard Group and Blackrock have 15.93 percent of the outstanding shares of the company (Lindsay 1).

Individualism
An Individualist would deem this controversy unethical because the decision to move Mac production to China does not maximize profits for the stockholders. This theory was created by Milton Friedman who stated that, "In such an economy, there is one and only one social responsibility to business-to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraud”(Desjardins 54). The ethical rule used in Individualism is, "Business actions should maximize profits for the owners of the business but do so within the law (The Case Manual 17). Due to the ongoing trade war between the United States and China, Apple stands to lose profits on tariffs imposed on goods. An Individual theorist to deem this controversy to be unethical because the stockholders lose profits as a result of the imposed tariffs on goods.

Utilitarianism
A utilitarian theorist would deem this controversy to be unethical because not everyone affected by Apple's decision to move Mac production to China is happy.  The ethical rule applied in utilitarianism is, "Business actions should aim to maximize happiness in the long run for all conscious beings that are affected by the business action"(The Case Manuel 19). Basically this means that a utilitarian theorist would weigh the pros and cons of a business action and how it would affect everyone involved. This controversy would be deemed unethical by a utilitarian theorist because the customers, stockholders, and employees are upset. Customers have to pay more to buy the Mac because of the raised tariffs, stockholders lose profits because of the raised tariffs, and Chinese employees are not receiving their rights to fair wages and a safe and healthy working environment. This results in unhappy customers, stockholders, and employees.

Kantianism
A Kantian theorist would deem this controversy to be unethical because the factory employees are being treated as a 'mere' means instead of as an ends. In Kantianism, to determine if an action is ethical, it is evaluated to see if it is of the good will and done with the right motivation. To determine if an action is of the good will, it is weighed against the three Categorical Imperative tests. The Formula of Humanity, one of the three Categorical Imperative tests, says that a person should, “ act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means”( Kantian Business Ethics 9). When assessing this controversy against the Formula of Humanity, it comes up lacking because the factory employees are treated as a 'mere' means instead of as an end. The workers are taken advantage of and not receiving their proper rights to fair wages and a safe and healthy environment. As for the motivation, Kantianism deems that only motivation permissible is the one done in accordance with the moral law or duty, otherwise stated as being the right thing to do.(Kantian Business Ethics 12) The motivation behind Apple’s decision to treat its workers poorly is not because it is the right thing to do, but because it is convenient for the company. Therefore, a Kantian theorist would deem Apple’s decision to move Mac production to China to be unethical because its factory workers are treated poorly.

Virtue Theory
A virtue theorist would deem this controversy to be unethical because the four virtues are not completely expressed.  The four virtues are: courage, honesty, temperance, and justice. Apple does not exhibit the virtue of courage because it is not taking a stand for the right ideas or actions. The factory workers in China are not being treated properly and the company stands to lose profits because of moving production of the Mac to China. The treatment of factory workers in China is not right. Therefore, the virtue trait of courage is not being expressed. Apple does not exhibit the virtue of honesty because it originally said that Mac production would be in the United States. Apple does not exhibit the virtue of temperance because it did not establish fair expectations with their workers and their desires for increase in production and profits is not achieved because of the trade war. The virtue trait of justice is not being shown because fair practices are not given to factory workers in China.  They are being deprived of the right to a safe working environment, the right to fair wages, and other rights (“Apple’s Failed CSR Audit” 1). In conclusion, a virtue theorist would deem this controversy to be unethical because the four virtues are not represented by Apple.

Justification Ethics Evaluation
In my opinion, Apple’s decision to move Mac Pro production to China was unethical for various reasons. The most important reason would be the treatment of Chinese factory employees. This could have been avoided if those in management had carried out the terms listed in Apple’s Code of Conduct and made necessary changes to make it happen. Nevertheless, this is how the factory employees are treated. Also, Apple’s decision to move production to China is unethical because it does not maximize profits for the stockholders. Tariffs have been raised by both countries all year, making the move a financial risk. There is currently no resolution to the trade war. The working conditions and the lack of maximized profits result in Apple’s decision to move Mac production to China unethical.

S Sherman

References (MLA 8 Format)

Apple's Failed CSR Audit.” Chinalaborwatch.org, 2018,
       www.chinalaborwatch.org/upfile/2018_01_12/201801161.pdf. Accessed 30 July
       2019

“China to Increase Tariffs on $60bn Worth of US Goods.” USA News | Al Jazeera,
       Al Jazeera, 13 May 2019, www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/05/china-impose-
       tariffs-60bn-worth-goods-190513132012941.html.

DesJardins, Joseph R. An Introduction to Business Ethics. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2014.

Gurman, Mark. “Apple Is Moving Mac Pro Production to China.” Apple Is Moving
       Mac Pro Production to China, Los Angeles Times, 28 June 2019,
       www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tn-apple-pro-china-20190628-story.html.
       Accessed 22 July 2019.

Maggio, Edoardo. “Workers at an Apple Manufacturing Plant in China Complained
       about Poor Working Conditions and Exposure to Noxious Chemicals.” Business
       Insider, Business Insider, 17 Jan. 2018, www.businessinsider.com/china-labour-
       watch-apple-catcher-working-Conditions-2018-1. Accessed 30 July 2019.

Salazar, Heather. The Case Manual. n.d.

Salazar, Heather. “Kantian Business Ethics”, in Business in Ethical Focus, ed. Fritz
       Allhoff and Anand J. Vaidya. Broadview Press, 2008.

Schuetz, Molly, Mark Gurman. “Apple Mac Pro Production Moving to China.” Time,
       Time, 28 June 2019, time.com/5617267/apple-mac-pro-china/. Accessed 31 July

       2019.