Response to case study scenario 1

For me, the release of the faulty devices would be a morality poor decision with potentially catastrophic consequences. I could therefore not ignore the problem ; fire is a killer and peoples lives should not be put at risk unnecessarily when the problem could be remedied. I could not ignore the problem as I would not want to be held responsible even if the action I would take could jeopardize my position in the company.

Thankfully, I have never been been placed in such a difficult position - but working at a supermarket I can say I was frequently placed in situations where I could have affected customers health by poor handling of the food, where things could have been ignored, but at risk to the customer. I always followed the correct procedures therefore I feel I can say that I would make the morally correct decision.

At first I would, either in person or via email, ask why the decision has been made to release the devices with the intention of creating a dialog where I could express my concerns. In doing so I would hope that I could make the manager change his mind and recall the devices. I would argue that it places peoples lives at risk and that it could harm the companies reputation by breaching company to consumer trust. Furthermore I would explain that the cost of recalling the devices would be financially less then that of a lawsuit if an accident did occur.

If this did not succeed then I would expect that manager was being put under additional pressure externally. An extreme example to the extent of which companies can pressure their employees can be seen in the article: Toyota: Suicide and Worker Depression at the World's Most Profitable Manufacturer found at http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/7565. It discusses how the pressures placed on the employees to gain maximum profit lead to a series of accidental deaths, large scale depression and suicides. With this in mind, my next steps would be to move away from my personal moral concerns and form an argument that is arguably less easily ignored, not to threaten but to provide a validation for him to recalling the devices to his superiors such as: under the freedom of information act section 38.1: "Information is exempt information if it is disclosed under this act, or would likely to: a) endanger the physical or mental health of any individual". Then quoting section 54: "Failure to comply with notice", where it states that failure to comply can lead to the court dealing with the authority (the company in this case) as if it had committed a contempt of court. A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court (quote Wikipedia, search for: Contempt of court, paragraph 2).

In conclusion I believe there are two main issues here; justifying the decision morally and in a business sense. By covering these points all parties should be able to agree with the decision and hopefully the correct course of action is taken and the devices are recalled.