Question

Case Study 6.3

Sniffing glue Could snuff profits

harvey benjaMin fuller founded The h. b. Fuller Company in 1887. Originally a one-man wallpaper-paste shop, H. B. Fuller is now a leading manufacturer of indus- trial glues, coatings, and paints, with operations worldwide. The company’s 10,000 varieties of glue hold together everything from cars to cigarettes to disposable diapers. However, some of its customers don’t use Fuller’s glues in the way they are intended to be used. That’s particularly the case in Central America, where Fuller derives 27 percent of its profits and where tens of thousands of homeless children sniff some sort of glue. Addicted to glue’s intoxicating but dangerous fumes, these unfortunate children are called resistoleros after Fuller’s Resistol brand. Child-welfare advocates have urged the company to add a noxious oil to its glue to discourage abusers, but the company has resisted, either because it might reduce the glue’s effectiveness or because it will irritate legitimate users.111 Either way, the issue is irritating H. B. Fuller, which has been recognized by various awards, honors, and socially conscious mutual funds as a company with a conscience. Fuller’s mission statement says that it “will conduct business legally and ethically, support the activities of its employees in their communities and be a responsible corporate citizen.” The St. Paul-based com- pany gives 5 percent of its profits to charity; it has committed itself to safe environmental practices worldwide (practices that are “often more stringent than local government standards,” the company says); and it has even endowed a chair in business ethics at the University of Minnesota. Now Fuller must contend with dissident stockholders inside, and demonstrators outside, its annual meetings. The glue-sniffing issue is not a new one. In 1969, the Testor Corporation added a noxious ingredient to its hobby glue to dis- courage abuse, and in 1994 Henkel, a German chemical com- pany that competes with Fuller, stopped making certain toxic glues in Central America. However, Fuller seems to have been singled out for criticism not only because its brand dominates Central America but also because—in the eyes of its critics, anyway—the company has not lived up to its own good-citizen image. Timothy Smith, executive director of the Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility, believes that companies with a reputation as good corporate citizens are more vulnerable to attack. “But as I see it,” he says, “the hazard is not in acting in a socially responsible way. The hazard is in over-marketing yourself as a saint.” Saintly or not, the company has made matters worse for itself by its handling of the issue. H. B. Fuller’s board of directors acknowledged that “illegal distribution was continuing” and that “a suitable replacement product would not be available in the near future.” Accordingly, it voted to stop selling Resistol adhe- sives in Central America. “We simply don’t believe it is the right decision to keep our solvent product on the market,” a company spokesman said. The Coalition on Resistoleros and other corporate gadflies were ecstatic, but their jubilation turned to anger when they learned a few months later that Fuller had not in fact stopped selling Resistol in Central America and did not intend to. True, Fuller no longer sold glue to retailers and small-scale users in Honduras and Guatemala, but it continued to sell large tubs and barrels of it to industrial customers in those countries and to a broader list of commercial and industrial users in neighboring countries. The company says that it has not only restricted distribution but also taken other steps to stop the abuse of its product. It has altered Resistol’s formula, replacing the sweet-smelling but highly toxic solvent toluene with the slightly less toxic chemi- cal cyclohexane. In addition, the company has tried—without success, it says—to develop a nonintoxicating water-based glue, and it contributes to community programs for homeless children in Central America. But the company’s critics disparage these actions as mere image polishing. Bruce Harris, director of Latin American programs for Covenant House, a nonprofit child- welfare advocate, asserts that Resistol is still readily available to children in Nicaragua and El Salvador and, to a lesser extent, in Costa Rica. “If they are genuinely concerned about the children,” he asks, “why haven’t they pulled out of all the countries—as their board mandated?”

After reading Case 6.3 on page 300 in the text, answer the following question: What are H. B. Fuller’s moral obligations in this case? What ideals, effects, and consequences are at stake? Have any moral rights been violated? What would a utilitarian recommend? A Kantian?

Answer 1

1. HB Fuller’s moral obligations:

Moral obligations everything they can to prevent illegal distribution & use of their products. Being the leading manufacturer, it is impossible for the company to get rid of misuse. But the company can take steps to stop it., which they are not by selling it to Honduras & Guatemala where the major abuse problem is. However the company can’t be responsible for every single person who decides to use the product in the wrong way.

1. There are various ideas, affects & consequences that are available in this situation. If HB Fuller is not changing the ingredient & stop selling, the kids will continue with the products & the stakeholder in & out of the company will not be happy with the company. Another effect is that HB fuller will lose some of its customers. It can also cost a lot to the company to find a good alternative. Another result would be unhappy customers who like to buy the glue as it is because it works well on their products. They are also putting the company at stake to post major losses & put the company at risk for layoffs & in a bad financial position which would happen if the quarter of the sales is gone.
2. Fuller’s rights have been violated in this case. Because moral rights protect the personality & reputation of the author. Because for this case, HB Fuller has put years of work in making the glue.
3. There are differences between utilitarianism & Kantianism. This is because utilitarianism views an action as right or wrong only with reference to consequences of the action. Whereas Kantianism is a categorical imperative that acts on all people regardless of their interests or desires.