Tonight's conversation on corporate responsibility really made me question the ethical nature of certain industries. We were talking about the cost of settlement during a law suit and how it is sometimes cheaper for a company to settle with numerous clients than to replace the defective property in the first place, like with the case of the exploding gas tank in Ford Pintos. And while it may have made financial sense to settle with these people instead of fixing the gas tank, people were still being injured. Had the gas tank been fixed when the problem was first detected, many people would not have been hurt. The safety of the public in this situation was not as important as earning a good return on their product.
In a topic more relevant to my life (since I am not in the market for a new car), the food a industry values money over the treatment of animals and workers. In a food class I took last semester, we learned about the meat industry and how animals are given the most fattening food possible so that they will have the most meat possible within the least amount of time. The value here is on the cost spent per amount of meat produced in a certain time, not on the life that the animal leads. Additionally, the conditions in which animals are kept--packing so many animals into a single cage or living area that they animals can no longer move is inhumane.
But do consumers care? Yes, I would argue that some do care about the treatment of animals (hence vegetarians, animal rights activists and the production of the movie FOOD, Inc.) But I would argue that the majority of Americans would choose the cheapest food product available even if that meant that the food they are eating was not procured in the best possible way. I'll admit that even after learning about the meat industry and watching FOOD, Inc., I was more conscious of the companies producing my meat--where the meat was coming from and the "organic" or "hormone-free" labels posted on the packaging. But at the same time, I was very conscious of the cost. I would be willing to pay a few bucks less to have the food come from a little further away even if I knew that it meant more fossil fuels were used in the transportation of my food.
So what do we have to do? I think there is an expectation on both the part of the company to share more information about how the product is being produced and on the part of the consumer to go out and seek that information. If you say that you support the fair treatment of animals and the workers that slaughter those animals, why would you then go and buy meat from a company that does not treat the animals or workers fairly? We consumers have to learn what the companies are doing (even if they do not want to share that information--we consumers have a right to know how our food is being produced). And companies also have to be more transparent. Hiding the processes makes a company seem untrustworthy, like they are doing something illegal that they do not want anyone to find out about. If there is nothing wrong with the way a company is working, what is the problem with sharing the way that company works with the consumers who buy those products?
We have to learn about the companies behind labels.
In a topic more relevant to my life (since I am not in the market for a new car), the food a industry values money over the treatment of animals and workers. In a food class I took last semester, we learned about the meat industry and how animals are given the most fattening food possible so that they will have the most meat possible within the least amount of time. The value here is on the cost spent per amount of meat produced in a certain time, not on the life that the animal leads. Additionally, the conditions in which animals are kept--packing so many animals into a single cage or living area that they animals can no longer move is inhumane.
But do consumers care? Yes, I would argue that some do care about the treatment of animals (hence vegetarians, animal rights activists and the production of the movie FOOD, Inc.) But I would argue that the majority of Americans would choose the cheapest food product available even if that meant that the food they are eating was not procured in the best possible way. I'll admit that even after learning about the meat industry and watching FOOD, Inc., I was more conscious of the companies producing my meat--where the meat was coming from and the "organic" or "hormone-free" labels posted on the packaging. But at the same time, I was very conscious of the cost. I would be willing to pay a few bucks less to have the food come from a little further away even if I knew that it meant more fossil fuels were used in the transportation of my food.
So what do we have to do? I think there is an expectation on both the part of the company to share more information about how the product is being produced and on the part of the consumer to go out and seek that information. If you say that you support the fair treatment of animals and the workers that slaughter those animals, why would you then go and buy meat from a company that does not treat the animals or workers fairly? We consumers have to learn what the companies are doing (even if they do not want to share that information--we consumers have a right to know how our food is being produced). And companies also have to be more transparent. Hiding the processes makes a company seem untrustworthy, like they are doing something illegal that they do not want anyone to find out about. If there is nothing wrong with the way a company is working, what is the problem with sharing the way that company works with the consumers who buy those products?
We have to learn about the companies behind labels.
RSS Feed