The deontological framework is based on deontology, which is the strategy of ethics based on the morality and innate virtue of the choice regardless of the consequences of the action taken. Therefore, deontological ethics are ethics that are considered to be morally and dutiful, correct in their integrity and merits, when other factors are independent.
Teleological frameworks are based on teleology, which is the ethical strategy that is based on the outcome of actions and choices in contrast to the intent. The teleology of Machiavellianism is held by individuals who manipulate conditions and others to get the outcome that benefits them. However, ethical values are in their minds. On the other hand, utilitarian teleology pursues results that are taken to benefit a large number of individuals. Based on (Cole 2000), the difference between teleological and deontological evaluations focuses on whether the actors center on the actions to be considered or the consequences of those actions (Peslak 2005).
Back to the case study, a North Carolina-based textile manufacturer is closing its operation in Carolina and wants to move to developing the country in Southern Asia. The main reason for the shift is low labor costs, which firms in Southern Asia are enjoying. The other reasons for the move are that the firm needs to get the free market advantage and also adopt the cheaper method of production.
Therefore, the proponents of the firm, from North Carolina to Southern Asia, are based on the teleological framework. The firm focuses on getting the results that are the advantages of the free market and also adopting of finding cheaper means of producing firm goods. However, the firm is closing its North Carolina plant, which will make its longtime loyal workers jobless, which will make them unable to support themselves and their own families. However, the firm comes up with the decision that will help it survive. Therefore, based on the teleological framework, the outcome of the decision was to lay off some of the loyal employees of the firm in North Carolina. Thus, there will be an increase in jobless individuals in North Carolina as many employees of the shifting textile manufacturer will be laid off. In contrast to the decision taken by the textile firm by the opponents, there will be a reduction in trust between the firm and its employees as most of them will be laid off when the firm shifts. However, the cheap labor the firm is moving for in southern Asia is child labor, according to the contractors in that location. There were poor working conditions in the place compared to the working environment in the United States. Therefore, firms in southern Asia normally use cheap child labor, and they do not provide a conducive working environment for their employees. Thus, there is mistreatment of employees. The reason for the available cheap labor force in Southern Asia is due to the large, desperate, poor population that exists in the region.
According to the deontological framework, the action of the textile firm shifting to Southern Asia is not the best decision due to the integrity and merit the company will experience in the new location. First, the firm will lose trust between itself and its employees as most of them will stop working, which will make them unable to support themselves and their families. Furthermore, the cheap labor the firm is running for is child labor, which is influenced by the desperately poor population in the new location. Therefore, the firm moved to Southern Asia to increase poverty in the region instead of assisting society in getting out of poverty by increasing their labor wages.
The best decision the textile firm should take is to retain its operation in North Carolina, which will retain its loyal employees. Then, it will expand to Southern Asia, where the firm will enjoy all the privileges that made the firm shift to the new locations. The firm should operate according to the ethnic values of society and should work to improve society, not manipulate people due to their poor status.
References
Alder, G. (1998). Ethical Issues in Electronic Performance Monitoring: A Consideration of Deontological and Teleological Perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics.
Bowen, S. (2004). Organizational Factors Encouraging Ethical Decision Making. Journal of Business Ethics.
Faber, M. (2002). The Next Tool for Managing Records. The Information Management Journal.
Peslak, A. (2005). An Ethical Exploration of Privacy and Radio Frequency Identification. Journal of Business Ethics.
