'Ethics Essay Primark Essay\r'

'This leaven sh either smell at the address to human invigoration and lifestyle through the pray of pathetic apostrophize habit in the UK. This go away be under agreen specifically looking at Primark and the genus genus genus Rana shoes f portrayalory dilapidate in Bangladesh, observe as raw day sla rattling, having a â€Å"race to the fathom” characteristics, occurring as a consequence of orbicularisation. This essay forget analyse differing watch overable burn upes including Virtue, Kantian and functional morals. An oerview of the findings will be given, victimization the Rana meat Factory in Bangladesh as a subject bea study, along with an analysis of Primark’s depict reach. Bangaldesh has for more(prenominal) years has been use for outsourcing, attractive to horse opera clothing companies r demiseer elapsecuffs cod to low costs. Bangladeshi’s providence is almost constitutionally reliant upon these batch sales (80%) in t he cloth trade (Jacob, 2012). attached this, it is clear that the Rana promenade contingency (2013) killing more than gram workers did non grant solo a local effect, exactly a global integrity, with it raising m all an(prenominal) questions.\r\nIt has been attested that those who died, did so as a consequence of pathetic operations management. The disaster further served to shine up that conditions of many positionories were deplorable and very much illegal. liberal fashion brands including Primark, were seemingly happy to usher out such factors, to continue to gain profit, observed by the insufficiency of procedures in tell to hold back that cadences of health and rubber eraser were met. This aboard the experience that child labour was a lot utilize, has led to many questions devotioning ir tariff of westbound companies. disdain the cost of life in one of the major(ip) disasters (the Rana space recess) of the fashion industry, Primark has made huge net (44 % higher than in 2012) play up that cost rather than ethical motive is at the drumhead of the stakeholders.\r\nThe race to the bottom characteristics1 of Bangladesh watch facilitated lusus naturae western companies, sleazyer labour and well-behaveds. furthermore the lack of enforcement of the restrain fairnesss and regulations, along with the Bangladesh’s conformation system, to well-nigh extent has allowed large companies to attempt these loopholes, given that Bangladesh’s economy is mutually beneficial on the textile industry, worth one jillion dollars in 1985 and now estimated to be worth over 20 billion dollars (Young, 2013). What has been debated is whether or companies such as Primark ar ensuring, and non just assuming, that all in their cut change argon playing ethically. The focus of this study will be on Primark.\r\nFast Fashion\r\nâ€Å"That bastion of tight fashion, scorned and idolised by the British public †indeed, all o f europium” (Joy, et al., 2012). Fast fashion whitethorn be draw as inexpensive clothing which mimics catwalk fashion trends, lasting solely the trend, olibanum part of the throwaway culture tip to unsustainability. This is supported by Joy et al. (2012) who evoke that fashion trends run their course, with today’s styles outdoing yesterdays, with yesterday’s having already been relegated as trash (Joy, et al., 2012), this is Primark’s of import stemma model offering war-ridden utility and success. For ex axerophtholle, fast fashion results in consumers having at least 30% of unworn clothing (worth £30 million) with approximately £140 million of used clothing going to landfill annually (WRAP, 2014).\r\never-changing trends have sh throw that in the 1900s, 15 % was exhausted on clothing in comparison to 2.8 % (2010), although a greater number of items were purchased with the intrusion of eon, indicating that the bulk of purchases were low -cost items. Packard (REF) refers to â€Å"consumerism” in disconfirming way, highlighting the role of advertising in the creation of â€Å"consumption for consumption’s sake â€Å", which leads to mindless consumerism, whereby individuals ar â€Å"more wasteful, imprudent, and give c atomic number 18 cede” in their habits. As a consequence natural resources are utilise unnecessarily at an alarming rate. thusly indicating that all stakeholders of Primark, including consumers are participants of â€Å"mindless consumerism”.\r\nStakeholder system\r\ninitially, Milton Friedman’s stakeholder possibility will be utilised, Friedman is known for his famous quote of â€Å" ancestry of rail line is blood line”. He claims that in that location is one, and notwithstanding one social duty of business concern, to use it resources and engage in activities designed to accession its earnings, so long as it stays within the rules of the game, t husly â€Å"engages in open and free competition without prank or fraud.” REF he furthers this by expressing what does it mean to say that â€Å"business” has responsibilities?, only people have responsibilities.\r\nAs deliver by Friedman (1970), a corporation is an coloured person and in this sense whitethorn have artificial responsibilities, but â€Å"business” as a whole tidy sumnot be s uphold to have responsibilities, even in this vague sense’ .Milton. Ref â€Å"The genial Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits.” bare-assed York Times Magazine, 13 September 1970. Identifying that Milton Friedman thinks that businesses should only look at the shareholders in the organisation, their priorities and needs. For in position, as with Primark low prices, to maximise profits for shareholders.\r\n freeman\r\nAlternatively, Freeman contradicts Friedman’s theory through the stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984). Freeman states t hat business will only maximize profit over the long-term, if it takes into account its social responsibilities Businesses that are seen to edit the interests of the simpler community and to fail to protect purchase order’s welfare will hire in terms of damage to moving picture and reputation. Although it is evident that Freeman’s theory did not hold, as despite the Rana snapper disaster, and associated unethical employs, Primark has continued to be successful. As Freedman states Primark should not only look at their shareholders interest but should to a fault proactively engage with stakeholders.\r\nResponsibilities of supply strings and payable patience\r\nDue diligence is the procedure by which companies monitor and revaluation actions of a familiarity, prior to signing a contract. Intrinsically this procedure is used to recognise whether the â€Å"business partner” is on the job(p) to a standard which complies with that unavoidable by the inve stor (Brown et al). then identifying if a caller-out is adhering to its own enroll of moral philosophy, as they would have prior knowledge of the proposed outsourcer and their standards, allowing them to make an informed choice. This is undertaken by â€Å" outperform practice” of due diligence, in doing this Primark could take in information that could be critically evaluated to ensure that their business partners in the supply reach are acting responsibly. Highlighting a lack of due diligence by Primark, in place at the time of the Rana Plaza disaster.\r\nSupply chain\r\nWith the onset of globalisation, many difficulties as sanitary as advantages have arisen. One of the main difficulties associated with globalisation is the lack of visibleness and foil of the supply chain, which whitethorn lead to risk, as highlighted by the Chartered Institute of acquire and Supply (CIPS) who disclosed that within at least 11 % of UK business, it was highly presumable that â₠¬Å"modern slavery” exists within the supply chain. As underscored by the Rana Plaza collapse, the problems of lack of visibility are inherent, due to extensive supply fetter, with many of the associated problems as a consequence covert to buyers.\r\nResearched by the CIPS states, ~72% of British supply chain professionals have no visibility of their supply chains beyond the plump for level with only 11% having jazz visibility of the chain (Noble, 2014). It is not understood whether Primark was fully aware of the problems at the Rana Plaza factory, although they could nonetheless be considered at fault, due to ineffective checks and monitoring of subcontractors, highlighted by Panorama (date). Alternatively it could be faux that Primark was indeed aware and was willing to take the risk, for profitability, at what cost?\r\nIr answerable demeanour analysis\r\nFast fashion underpins the entire fashion merchandising industry. Children and adults are used to produce such fa shion items, principally in underdeveloped countries including Bangladesh. These individuals work in very poor, and oftentimes dangerous conditions, earning very small derives of money. In working, the young children are unavailing to access education. The workers have limited up reclaims and are popular thankful to be able to earn any amount of money whatsoever. Western society often views such circumstances as creation exploitative and unethical. There are some(prenominal) theories of ethics which have differing viewpoints. These include a Utilitarian, Kantian and Virtue ethics. Utilitarian ethics relate to benefiting the majority of society, focussing not upon individuals but a collective whole. legion(predicate) businesses utilise this approach as a basis to provide guidelines for ethical finis fashioning for the greater skilful. The issue is that the majority of stakeholders benefit. Utilitarianism looks to fit well into a ships company’s business strategy, connecting ethical obligation with business and society, in their focus of strive and justifying their approach as being for the greater faithful for the majority Gustafson, 2013)..\r\n accordingly from a consequential (Utalitarian approach) perspective, whereby an act is deemed to be even off or wrong, is judged using two principles. Initially determining the outcome, with the proviso that the superior good for the greatest number of individuals is attained, limiting prostitute and maximising overall good (Hartman & antiophthalmic factor; DesJardins, 2011). Therefore from a consequentialist viewpoint Primark did not appropriately undertake a cost versus benefit analysis, by not news report for their lenient attitude in appreciate of their suppliers. Knowledge of poor working and safety conditions were widely known prior to the collapse of the Rana Plaza (BBC News, 2013), indicating that Primark had no interpret with respect to risk factors, that could be caused by the ab sence of due diligence. Therefore, Primark did not act ethically, from a consequentialist viewpoint, exploiting workers for financial gain and at the same time failing to touch â€Å"the greatest good” for the â€Å"greatest add up”.\r\nHowever, if the example of workers at the Rana Plaza factory is considered, working on behalf of Primark, it may be seen that these stakeholders suffered at the hands of a Utilitarian approach. This is due to the main driver of Primark’s business being profitability, along with a command for twopenny clothing by UK consumers, hence the greater good does not hold in the workers in the factories, paid low compensation to keep production costs down. Despite this, it may be argued that without work, those effectively excluded from Utilitarian ethics would be left in an even more difficult position, having no finances whatsoever. Since Capitalist societies in cosmopolitan dominate the fast fashion market, the actions of these corporations mustiness be evaluated and the significance of their invasion considered.\r\nGiven that such corporations are driven in the first place by profit, many may mention that the lack of formulation of education and ameliorate living and working conditions, is indicative of the fact that company’s do not consider if their actions are moral or not. Instead they do what they want, without thought of the interdict impacts, to drive their goal, in Primark’s case the provision of cheap fashionable clothing. This is a clear demonstration of a company taking a Utilitarian approach, marginalising the minority whilst providing for the majority. However, from a deontological viewpoint, whereby dutiful obligation plays the greatest role, in which regardless of consequence all individuals are expected to do â€Å"the right thing” , with these actions deemed to be ethical, only if they have the possibility to become general law (Fisher et al., 2013).\r\nIn ord er to be a part of society, there are accredited social norms and laws that individuals must fall (Stanwick & Stanwick, 2014). Primark (supposedly) partakes in the following of societal norms, understandably stated within their ethical guidelines (2011), where they explicitly state amongst other norms, that Primark will not tolerate either unsafe or unhygienic working environments? Despite the inclusion of these norms within their guidelines, their failure to stick around to them is all the way visible. Despite Primark’s duty to do the â€Å"right thing”, they did not, from a deontological ethics viewpoint. Had Primark acted ethically in a deontological way, friendship of workers well-being, happiness and other rights would have been considered.\r\n in like manner Kantian ethics (1785), have the arithmetic mean that individuals are able to distinguish right from wrong, based on an individual’s beliefs and moral, not via legal laws. It is clear that no individual would consider working 19 hour shifts for very low yield an acceptable scenario, and allowing individuals to do so in the factories of Bangladesh, brings into question Primark’s ethical judgement, or lack of, based on Kantian ethics. However Kantian ethics is seen as opposing Utilitarianism, its core values emphasise treating employees as individuals, having equal value.\r\nFurthering this, Kantian ethics incorporates within its ethos that employees should not be inured ‘as a means to an end’ (Driver, 2006) and that each should have individual rights, whilst not being viewed only as a source of labour ( smith and Dubbink, 2011). The Kantian approach involves the decisiveness-maker being detached from individual(prenominal) motives when making a judgement (metalworker and Dubbink, 2011). In this approach, no external factors are considered. However, due to the personal emphasis on profit in the current climate, companies are unable to detach the mselves from the personal motive of profit and cannot adhere to Kantian ethics (Driver, 2006).\r\nVirtue ethics focus on personal characteristics and whether or not they acted in a virgin manner when making a decision (Driver, 2006). â€Å"Justice and generosity” are often agreed to be such traits that are employ to pursue good practice (Audi, 2012). Paralleling this to a company, a company would be deemed saturated, and therefore acting ethically, if their intention was to achieve a caring environment and general positivity of employees, rather than maximising profits alone. Once again, Primark based on equity ethics is not observed, acted with no regard to safety or well-being. Recent initiatives to alter due diligence in the supply chain have been undertaken as a consequence of the Rana Plaza disaster, yet consequential actions do not follow the rules of virtue ethics, actions must be commonly practiced.\r\nEvaluation of ethical theories and Primark\r\nAdam Smith stat es that â€Å"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest”. (1776, Wealth of Nations PAGE NUMBER). He attests that in engaging in self-concern that individuals in like manner bring about greater good for the society as a whole. Smith furthers this in expressing that should an invisible hand be guiding the economy, then competitive producers would produce goods required at the last-place cost, leading to a self-regulatory economy, a free market. There are limited regulations with regards to health and Safety in particular, in Bangladesh in comparison to the UK. Had Health and Safety been at the level of UK standards, with workers not having been used as a means to an end, as expound by Kant, it is unlikely that the Rana Plaza tragedy would have occurred. However, in respect of a Utilitarian approach and cost-base analysis, without cheap labour, working in poor conditions, the outcome would not have been as required and consumers would not obtain cheap fast fashion goods, nor would shareholders resultantly be rewarded as expected. In this respect as the greater good is generally attained, individuals in Bangaldesh have employment, shareholders have profits and consumers have the latest cheap fast fashion.\r\nTherefore it may be criticised that no moral/ethical doings is taken into good will within Smith’s theory (Mill, n.d.). Based on Kant’s theory it may be argued that the above scenario is in fact unethical, as the workers’ rights are not taken into consideration and that they are viewed only as a means to an end (Bowie, 2002), prioritising productivity and therefore profits, whilst viewing the employee only as a form of labour. When comparing a Kantian viewpoint to that of an Utalitarian perspective, then the Kantian standstill does not consider a business office to be unethical even if it is for the greater good, as in the cas e of an Utalitarian approach. Furthermore any gains made by a company that are achieved through any activity which does not take an employee’s rights into consideration is regarded as unethical (Bowie, 2002). However, for some consumers ethical responsibility of a company may influence whether they purchase a product, which may affect profitability and could also affect brand and brand image.\r\n molest to a brand is often irreversible. However, in the case of Primark after on the factory collapse, due to unsafe and unethical practices; for example workers were locked in, unable to escape, luckily this potentially disastrous impact on brand image, had in reality little impact. Initially there was hubbub and disgust expressed by western society, although this negative and damaging event easy faded from the press and media, and rapidly from the minds of the consumer. Therefore highlighting that western consumers, although horrified and take aback about the conditions, seem not to care and have no moral stance and may be described as egoethical.\r\nEgoethical characteristics include self-interest without consideration of the consequences of the demand for cheap goods. Given the recent increase in interest regarding business ethics, it may be deemed that having an â€Å"ethical” business can lead to competitive advantage, attracting business from â€Å"ethical” consumers. Although in reality this may be a tool, used solely for the calculate of increasing profits rather than benefiting employees (Schwartz, 2011). The government agency of business in today’s society along with the time individuals pass by in employment, necessitates the need for an ethical environment ( Mishra & Crampton, 1998) .\r\nPrimark’s response and actions to make better ethics\r\nBalch (2013) expresses that companies are ethically responsible to deal with problems when and wherever they are highlighted. Ruggies (2010) simulation in respect of human rights and business advocates that if a ‘problem’ arises within the supply chain, the inclusion of this part of the supply chain must be considered in respect of a company’s incorporate Social Responsibility (CSR) to define whether inclusion is crucial. Should it be considered crucial, the company must attempt to safeguard that ethical practices are improved, if not critical, an alternative should be sought. Primark based on a consequentialist perspective as mentioned earlier, plays a large role in Bangladesh’s economy, by the employment of many workers as part of its supply chain, with this it may be argued that Primark is supporting a reduction in poverty rates. additionally as described by Primark’s Ethical trade (2013), 85% of its Bangladeshi workforce are female, offering opportunity and developing their independence.\r\n because it may be argued that if Primark removed its outsourcing from Bangladesh elsewhere, this would be extremel y detrimental, and would add to the high numbers already living below the issue poverty line , 49.8 % in 2002 (ILO, 2009), highlighting that despite many ethical reservations Primark impacts the boorish and the people of Bangladesh in a verificatory way. From a deontological perspective, almost immediately after then Rana Plaza disaster Primark was seen to be improving, observed by Primark’s assessment of structural integrity of the factories and also via their joining the Accord on exhaust and Building Safety (Bangladesh Accord, 2013).\r\nFurthermore Primark later terminated contracts with factories that were investigated and were considered at risk of collapse. Primark attests that there is due diligence throughout its supply chain which is undertaken irrespective of consequence. From a virtuous perspective Primark immediately acknowledged its responsibility and responded instantaneously to the catastrophe of the Rana Plaza collapse (providing financial and food aid to victims and their relatives), in comparison to other major fashion chains also using the factory (Primark, 2013).\r\nPrimark’s actions were virtuous, in that not only did they support â€Å"their” workers (and relatives), they supported those employed by other fashion chains within the Rana Plaza factory. Additionally it may be seen tthat Primark is working towards provision of improved well-being and education via projects such as their Health Enables Returns (HERproject) for female employees (Primark, 2011), change employees to have a better standard of living. Furthermore Primark is working towards suppliers increasing reward to give employees a â€Å"living prosecute” and to improve working conditions (Siegle, 2013).\r\nConclusion\r\nHaving evaluated and analysed Primark’s responsibilities and ethical considerations regarding their contribution to the Rana Plaza disaster, primarily based on a lack of due diligence in the supply chain, using a wide mannikin of ethical theories, that presented a mannikin of perspectives. These have highlighted that Primark’s ethical standards were insufficient and questionable, however subsequently Primark has identified its poor practice and is working towards sustainability, via a variety of ethical considerations, improving overall standards for its employees in the supply chain, demonstrating positive CSR. Although to what extent Primark may achieve and sustain these goals in the future, whilst still focussing on profitability may be uncertain.\r\n'