Question

In your small business as a clothing distributor, you often source products from other countries where cotton is produced. Recently, you received an email from an international labor group alleging that some of the local middlemen you use to purchase cotton are unfairly compensating the small cotton growers for their crops. The labor group asks that your company only purchase “Fairtrade” certified cotton so that you have assurance that the farmers with smaller operations will receive fair market value for their crops. Members of your management staff are concerned that fairtrade cotton is often more expensive, which could increase your overall production costs. However, you also must take into account your long-standing relationships with the local middlemen in the cotton market as they are often able to access cotton crops that other buyers cannot.

: Choose one philosophical approaches to ethics: Non-consequentialism, Consequentialism, or Virtue Ethics that are presented in the Ethical Approaches pdf in the Learning Activity.

Of the three ethical theories presented in the Learning Activity, which one would be most likely to guide your decision in this situation? Explain your reasoning. Draft your response to the international labor group explaining your decision and supporting reasoning.

Answer 1

Judging by the scenario presented in the example, the most appropriate philosophical approach to ethics would be ‘Consequentialism’.

This is because the main motive of every rational producer is to maximize profits. No rational producer goes out of its way to help others at the cost of his benefits. In this case, ‘Non-consequentialism’ is out of question because it is the consequence of the response that is most important and something that will decide the future profit path for my small clothing distribution business. ‘Virtue Ethics’ will also not feature here because consequentialism rather than virtue ethics help maximize profits. Thus it is consequentialsim rather than Non-consequentialism or Virtue Ethics that should help one arrive at this decision from the point of view of a rational producer.

The outcome here based on consequentialism gives more weight to how my local middlemen are protected from allegations. However, at the same time, I have to remember that my business is a small one, which means that I do not have market power to influence the action of any other firm or that of the international labour group. If by chance all other firms and the international labour group charge me for unfair compensation practices for cotton procurement, my business might have to shut down. Thus, on one hand, I have to keep the long-standing relationships with the local middlemen in the cotton market going strong. This is because, it has been mentioned that middlemen in the cotton market are often able to access cotton crops that other buyers cannot. On the other hand, I cannot offend the international labour organization by dismissing their claims altogether.

The outcome thus will be to buy Fairtrade certified cotton to save my business, without agreeing to the allegations against the middlemen to protect their sentiments.

Even though buying Fairtrade Certified cotton is the morally right way to go, this outcome is arrived at based on consequential rather than non-consequential or virtue ethics because consequences are what matter here the most.

The response could be drafted in the following way:

Dear Mr. (Name)

I was notified regarding the issue faced by small cotton growers on account of the compensation procedure by my team of middlemen. As far as I know them, I can assure you that they wouldn’t resort to unfair means of compensation from small cotton growers. They have been in this business for a long time, and they’ve done their duty with honesty.

However, once alerted, I will take extra care of the fact that small cotton growers are not unfairly compensated. Thus, I would ask my local middlemen to make sure that Fairtrade certified cotton is bought.

Regards,

(My name)

The rationale for this response stands on the basic logic that being a small firm, neither do I have market power to fight back against the international labour group, nor can I offend my local middlemen. The increase in cost due to buying fair-trade certified cotton is negligible when compared to the high costs faced if my firm is forced to shut down otherwise.