Ethical Analysis of Two Cases: Textile Manufacturing and Electronic Waste Recycling

Case 1: Outsourcing Clothing Production to Ismiristan

I have attached 2 case studies. Both of them have different situations and question at the end that needs to be answer. I also include another attachedment that will serve as a guide to properly answer the questions, the file name would be the Case-Analyis-Worksheet. This is also to clarify and organize the various ethical theories and what may have to say about the case. Think carefully about these arguments and counter-arguments on both sides of the question. On the next line, write “yes” or “no” at the left margin in response to the question. In one clear and brief sentence, state the one strongest reason in support of your position. Underline this sentence, and then write a single paragraph in which you develop your reasoning. Then, in one clear sentence, state the one strongest objection to your position. In other words, what reason could a critic give for rejecting your view? Don’t give just any old objection; the objection should be strong. Underline this sentence. Then write a paragraph in which you defend yourself by answering the objection. I will also attached a sample answers below for reference. Case 1 (Ch.11)
Kate Bond is the CEO  of Seinfeld Textiles, which manufactures clothing in a single factory in Canada. Canada has recently signed a free trade deal with Ismiristan that removes all barriers to trade on clothing between the two countries. The ST board of directors is unhappy with the prospective future profitability of the ST clothing factory in Canada. Most of the financial value in ST is in its brand, in its reputation for quality clothing, and in its contracts with retailers. If ST were to sell its brand and its goodwill to another clothing company, then its owners would receive a good price. Its owners could then easily find new, more profitable investment opportunities in Canada. Kate thinks that if  ST continues production in Canada, then competitors offering cheaper imported clothing will probably take away some of ST ’s customers. ST  provides well-paid, unionised jobs, and is the biggest employer in its community. Kate has lived all of her life in that community. Some of her family and many of her friends work for ST , and her best friend runs the local department store. ST closing its factory would be a disaster for all of them. Kate has asked her VP  of production to recommend how to cut costs, and his committee has recommended that ST close the local factory, and contract with a broker to arrange for the same lines of clothing to be manufactured in garment factories in Ismiristan, where wages are much lower than in Canada. Out-sourcing clothing production to garment factories in Ismiristan could be a f inancial blessing for the people there. Most of the garment workers in Ismiristan are young, rural women who come to the cities, stay in dormitories, work long days in the factories, and send money home to their families. Their wages are very low in absolute terms, but higher than the wages they would receive in the countryside, if they could f ind any work. They are usually very poor and would otherwise have no employment prospects or sources of income. Though they do relatively well financially, the garment workers face other problems. They pay high rents to the companies for their dormitory accommodation, and they must buy their food at the company store. Managers often order them to work overtime at straight wages. Supervisors treat them disrespectfully, and sometimes ask for sexual favours. No laws permit them to form unions. Their culture is patriarchal, so fathers, brothers, or husbands control the money that they send to their families. Many of them are young mothers who must go long periods without seeing their children. If  ST were to outsource its clothing production, its employees in Canada would receive small severance packages, as well as six months of employment insurance from the government, though at about half of their regular salaries. They would have other employment opportunities in Canada, though most such opportunities would require relocating to a different, oil-rich, province, or require a long commute every few weeks to see their families. Selling their homes would be difficult if ST closed its factory, and their houses would lose much of their value.

Case 2 (Ch.12)
Lars Olsen is the CEO  of Electronic Manufacturing Inc. EMI  is a large manufacturer of hi-tech wireless mobile devices. Recently the government of Homeland, where EMI ’s principal factory and all of EMI ’s consumers are located, has brought in new environmental legislation that regulates the disposal of the toxic materials that go into the manufacture of electronic devices. This regulation makes manufacturers responsible for the recycling of any electronic devices that contain toxic materials, even after consumers have purchased the devices. This new policy will be costly for EMI . EMI  will have to charge distributors, and thus consumers, a large, refundable deposit in order to get the devices back. As well, EMI  will now be responsible for the costs of recycling the devices. Sales will fall, and costs will rise. EMI  has no choice but to comply. Lars’s job is to recommend to the board of directors of EMI  how to lower the costs of recycling. The board will collectively make the final decision on what to do. Lars knows that, in his recommendation, he should consider not only the internal costs to EMI , but also the external costs to society of the considerable pollution caused by the recycling process. The emissions from the recycling process will cause health problems for the whole country. Because the emissions will not break down, but instead will accumulate in the national environment, their cleanup will become a big problem in the future. Lars sees only two ways to proceed. Firstly, EMI  could locate its recycling facility at its principal factory in Homeland to take advantage of the transport efficiency of employing back-hauls of recycled devices from distributors. Secondly, EMI  could ship the returned devices to Awayland, a country on the west coast of Africa where labour is much cheaper, and contract with a local recycling company there to dispose of the devices. Homeland has strong environmental laws and a legal system that makes polluters pay for the damages that they cause. Its citizens earn high incomes, and any days that they take off work because of environmental sickness lose them a lot of money. Healthcare in Homeland is very good, but also very expensive. Capital markets in Homeland are very efficient and interest rates there are low. The GDP  growth rate in Homeland is also low because its economy is already large and highly developed. Returns on investment are stable and moderate. Awayland has environmental laws that are very favourable to polluters. Emissions are legally permissible and protected unless specifically forbidden by regulation. Awayland currently has no regulations regarding electronic waste, and is unlikely to change this policy. Many people are unemployed in Awayland, and average incomes are very low. Healthcare is inexpensive, but rudimentary. Capital markets in Awayland have not yet developed, so interest rates are relatively high, as are returns on investment. Awayland is starting to industrialize, so its GDP  is growing quickly.
Questions
Case 1: Should Kate recommend outsourcing clothing production to Ismiristan?
Case 2: Should Lars recommend shipping the returned devices to Awayland?