Question

This week several large companies announced self imposed restrictions on gun sales in response to the recent school shooting in Florida. Both Dick’s Sporting Goods and Walmart placed restrictions on the sale of “assault style riffles” and additional age restrictions as well. Other companies have since followed suit, despite the fact that the United States Congress has thus far failed to respond with legislation.

Do you feel that Dick’s Sporting Goods and Walmart responded in an ethically and socially responsible manner, especially in light of their various stakeholders?

Answer 1

These companies took the initiatives to bring in restriction upon the sales of rifles. It brings benefits to the communities that confirms to the utilitarian approach of the ethical theory. It means that action taken by the companies are ethical in nature. Besides, as per the deontological approach, the intention of the action by the companies, is morally right in the society. So, it is also ethical as per the deontological approach. Further, the action taken up by the companies will result in restriction upon the number of ownership of the rifles. It can reduce the chances of the occurrence of such incidents. So, it is ethical as per the consequentialist approach. Here, the interests of the communities and the regulatory agencies in terms of the reduction of fire cases are taken care off. Employees also get clarity upon the guidelines as well. Owners of the company as stakeholders, can see a small dip in sales of these products. But looking at the broader picture, they will be benefitted in terms of increase in goodwill and reputation in the market.
Though, to make an effective implementation of these actions are equally important. Developing a stringent policy guidelines and training of the employees who are involved in sales of these products. It will make the self-imposed action to be ethical in real sense.