For this last blog post of the semester, I’m going to be discussing the case that involves Johnson & Johnson and how they bribed European doctors to purchase knee and hip implants. As Northouse states, “ethics is concerned with virtuousness of individuals (corporations) and their motives.” Ethical theory provides a system of rules or principles that guide us in making decisions about what is right or wrong and good or bad in a particular situation. In this particular situation, I feel that there is significant evidence that justifies Johnson & Johnsons actions and would have to definitely agree that this is unethical.
Johnson & Johnson admitted bribing European doctors and agreed to pay $70 million in civil and criminal fines. However, Johnson & Johnson had provided significant assistance in their investigation of others in the industry, resulting in a reduced criminal fine for the health conglomerate. With this said I’m going to incorporate material in the book, Leading Change by Northouse and going to talk about the teleological theory of ethical Egoism and show how this is applied to the case. Also, I’m going to further provide another point that this is also an example of a critical life event that would change this health conglomerate for good.
Ethical egoism states that a person should act to create the greatest good for themselves rather than worrying about others. As stated by Northouse, “ Ethical egoism is common in some business contexts in which a company and its employees make a decision to achieve its goal of maximizing profits (Northouse). In this scenario, Johnson & Johnson truly went against the principle of “manifests honesty” that says that a company should never accept survival of the fittest pressures because it will result in dishonest behaviors (Northouse). With Johnson & Johnson’s unethical acts, they felt that they had no other way out. These unethical acts were done in desperation considering that they would have lost 95% of their business by the end of the year. Under the ethical egoism approach, it states that leaders act this way to create the greatest good for the leader. In this case, it was Johnson & Johnson that didn’t really care about anyone else and just thought about themselves and did everything in their power to maximize their profits to make up for all the past product recalls. In the article, Gardiner Harris states, “The company has issued more that 50 product recalls since the start of last year involving such household brands as Tylenol, Motrin, Rolaids and Benadryl’ (Harris). With all these recalls, Johnson and Johnson had to make up for this decline in profits somehow and chose to be unethical and worry about themselves.
After all this, I feel that Johnson & Johnson also took a deontological approach as well. “Telling the truth, keeping promises, being fair, and respecting others are all examples of actions that are inherently good, independent of the consequences” (Norhouse). Independently of the consequences in this particular case, the company openly states, “we are deeply disappointed by the unacceptable conduct that led to these violations” (Harris). I feel that they did do the right thing as a company and openly admitted that they were in fact wrong and that this was a learning experience for them. I feel that this situation can act as a “critical life event” and can serve as a catalyst for change within the organization (Northouse). The company can talk about their problems and then could correct their problem from here on out.
In this case I incorporated the teleological theory that focus on consequences of the organizations actions and used the concept of ethical egoism to further state my position. I also said by telling the truth and openly admitting to their unethical behavior, demonstrated the deontological theory and also will resulted in a triggered event that would deeply impact the organization. Please read over this article and tell me any other approaches or theories that you can tie in that I did not cover. Do you think this organization learned their lesson? What insight can you provide to further strengthen my argument?
For the article please click here
- Steve Fagiano
Steve, after taking this test today and having everything still fresh in my mind, I would have to say that this is a great article that demonstrates the principles of ethics. I feel that this article demonstrates the principle that the outcome of this behavior will definitely be considered a critical life event or also known as a “trigger” event. With Johnson & Johnson having so many product recalls in the past and now being unethical to try to maximize their profits, they will unquestionably learn their lesson. I liked how you also demonstrated the teleological approach of ethical egoism. Pointed out by Northouse in figure 15.1 is shows that ethical egoism has a high concern for self-interest and a low concern for the interest of others. As applied to the article, I agree with you that Johnson & Johnson was being unethical and trying to create the greatest good for themselves by trying to maximize their profits.
ReplyDelete-- Michael Cosentino