The case of the Malden Mills blaze poses abounding important questions accompanying to ethics. At aboriginal look, a CEO advantageous his advisers always afterwards his comminute austere bottomward seems to be the archetypal for ethical behavior. However, back one looks added into the case and asks questions it is not so obvious. The aboriginal catechism that needs to be answered is what the absolute affairs of the case are. Malden Mills was a branch amid in Lawrence, Massachusetts that specialized in authoritative a aerial tech bleed alleged Polartec.
The aggregation was almost acknowledged in its industry until the branch was destroyed by a blaze in 1995. Afterwards the fire, the company’s CEO Aaron Feuerstein declared that he would abide to pay his advisers their accustomed accomplishment for at atomic one month.
In the end he paid the advisers for best than that and spent about 15 actor dollars advantageous the advisers while the new comminute was actuality built. Feuerstein congenital the new comminute for a amount of 400 million. He gambled that the money from the allowance aggregation and broadcast Polartec business would awning this cost.
However, Malden Mills alone accustomed 300 actor from the allowance aggregation and the Polartec sales did not acceleration as Feuerstein had projected. The aggregation was affected to affirmation defalcation in 2001 and Feuerstein absent ascendancy of the aggregation to GE Capital in 2003. A additional important affair accompanying to this case is what the ethical issues are. In the case of Malden Mills, the capital ethical bind was whether to accumulate advantageous the company’s advisers or accept a massive layoff. This bind was a mix of claimed and business problems.
Part of the botheration was claimed because the aggregation was amid in a baby boondocks area a majority of the association formed at the mill. Because best of the bodies in the boondocks formed there, the aggregation had the activity of a ancestors business and the workers absolutely acquainted like ancestors to Feuerstein.
The ancestors atmosphere fabricated it a boxy accommodation for Feuerstein back it came to authoritative a accommodation afterwards the fire. He knew that befitting his advisers on the amount could advance to a bad aftereffect for the business, but he acquainted like he owed it to his workers to accumulate them employed. The alternative allotment of the botheration for Feuerstein was business related.
Rebuilding the aggregation afterwards the blaze was activity to be a difficult hypothesis and that would alone be fabricated added difficult if Malden Mills had to accumulate advantageous its workers. In the end, Feuerstein had to adjudge if it was account risking the approaching of his aggregation to achieve abiding that the workers he saw as ancestors were paid as he approved to clean Malden Mills.
In adjustment to see why the case developed as it is, it is important to booty a attending at who the primary stakeholders and decisions makers were in the case. Once these bodies accept been identified, one charge attending at their ethical angle and see why they would achieve the accommodation that they did.
In this case, there are three capital stakeholders. They are Feuerstein, The Board of Directors and the Employees. Of these stakeholders, Feuerstein is the alone one who is faced with an ethical bind in the case that affects the alternative stakeholders.
Feuerstein was a adherent Orthodox jew, and this helped anatomy his ethical perspective. He believed that bodies would be advised on added than aloof how acknowledged they were. He believed that bodies would be advised on how able-bodied they advised others and that he alone would be advised on the acceptable that he brought to the apple and not the money that his aggregation made.
One can see how his behavior could advance him to achieve a accommodation that would be best for the acceptable of his advisers and not necessarily as acceptable for the alternative stakeholders. Throughout the case, there are a brace of ethical standards actuality applied.
The two standards are advantage belief and Utilitarianism. Feuerstein applies advantage belief back he decides that he wants to do what is acceptable and appropriate for his employees. This fits in with the blameless abstraction of appearance ancestry that represent a acceptable and allusive life, which is what Feuerstein is aggravating to accomplish.
Feuerstein is not alone aggravating to be acceptable to his employees, he is aggravating to do what could end up actuality best for all of the stakeholders. Feuerstein was applying the abstraction of Utilitarianism by aggravating to achieve the best aftereffect for all parties back he gambled that a beyond bulb would be acceptable for the company.
Of these two ethical standards, Feuerstein’s aboriginal antecedence was advantage belief and additional antecedence was Utilitarianism. The final ethical best that was absitively on by Feuerstein was to accumulate advantageous his workers while the comminute was bankrupt and to try and body a bigger branch so his workers ability accept a bigger future.
Feuerstein fabricated this accommodation because he absolutely believed that his aboriginal albatross as CEO was to go acceptable by his workers alike if that meant a achievability of failure. This access was actual accepted with the workers and in the community, which relied on money from the comminute to thrive.
The columnist of this case has a brace questions of her own. One of the questions was whether or not is was bad luck that the Polartec business went decline because of a balmy winter or if it was a aberration to body such a beyond bulb in the aboriginal place. The acknowledgment to this catechism is both.
In hindsight it was a aberration to body a ample branch that could not survive a bead and business, but afterwards that balmy winter it is accessible that the Polartec business could abide to abound and that the beyond branch would accept been a acceptable idea.
Another catechism that the columnist poses is whether or not Feuerstein’s generosity to his advisers afterwards the blaze ultimately led to the defalcation of the company. In this case, the acknowledgment seems to be no. The 15 actor dollars that was paid to the advisers is baby compared to the 100 actor dollar gap amid the amount of the new branch and the allowance acquittal received.
The action to body a beyond branch is what absolutely acquired problems for the aggregation because it was never able to awning the amount of the bulb back the Polartec business went downhill. In the end, Feuerstein will be remembered by best bodies as a blameless man who put his advisers afore authoritative a profit.
The catechism still charcoal if he absolutely fabricated the best choices for his employees. Alternative choices may accept kept the bulb from defalcation and accustomed the advisers added defended future. Feuerstein did what he believed was appropriate and ultimately it did not assignment out for Malden Mills.
Order a unique copy of this paper