Corporate Responsibility

From a business perspective, working under government contracts can be a very lucrative proposition. In general, a stream of orders keep coming in, revenue increases and the company grows in the aggregate. The obvious downfalls to working in this manner is both higher quality expected as well as the extensive research and documentation required for government contracts. If a part fails to perform correctly it can cause minor glitches as well as problems that can carry serious repercussions, such as in the National Semiconductor case. When both the culpable component and company are found, the question arises of how extensive these repercussions should be. Is the company as an entity liable or do you look into individual employees within that company? From an ethical perspective one would have to look at the mitigating factors of both the employees and their superiors along with the role of others in the failure of these components. Next you would have to analyze the final ruling from a corporate perspective and then we must examine the macro issue of corporate responsibility in order to attempt to find a resolution for cases like these. The first mitigating factor involved in the National Semiconductor case is the uncertainty, on the part of the employees, on the duties that they were assigned. It is plausible that during the testing procedure, an employee couldnt distinguish which parts they were to test under government standards and commercial standards. In some cases they might have even been misinformed on the final consumers of the products that they tested. In fact, ignorance on the part of the employees would fully excuse them from any moral responsibility for any damage that may result from their work. Whether it is decided that an employees is fully excused, or is given some moral responsibility, would have to be looked at on an individual basis. The second mitigating factor is the duress or threatsT employee might suffer if they do not follow through with their assignment. After the bogus testing was completed in the National Semiconductor labs, the documentation department also had to falsify documents stating that the parts had surpassed the governmental testing standards. From a legal and ethical standpoint, both the testers and the writers of the reports were merely acting as agents on direct orders from a superior. This was also the case when the plant in Singapore refused to falsify the documents and were later falsified by the employees at the have California plant before being submitted to the approval committees (Velazquez, 53). The writers of the reports were well aware of the situation yet they acted in this manner on the instruction of a supervisor. Acting in an ethical manner becomes a secondary priority in this type of environment. As stated by Alan Reder, . . . if they [the employees] feel they will suffer retribution, if they report a problem, they arent too likely to open their mouths. (113). The workers knew that if the reports were not falsified they would come under questioning and perhaps their employment would go into jeopardy. Although working under these conditions does not fully excuse an employees from moral fault, it does start the divulging process for determining the order of the chain of command of superiors and it helps to narrow down the person or department that issued the original request for the unethical acts. The third mitigating factor is one that perhaps encompasses the majority of the employees in the National Semiconductor case. We have to balance the direct involvement that each employee had with the defective parts. Thus, it has to be made clear that many of the employees did not have a direct duty with the testing departments or with the parts that eventually failed. Even employees, or sub-contractors, that were directlyT part of the testing department. For example, the electrical engineer that designed the defective computer chip could act in good faith that it would be tested to ensure that it did indeed meet the required government endurance tests. Also, for the employees that handled the part after the testing process, they were dealing with what they believed to be a component that met every governmental standard. If it was not tested properly, and did eventually fail, isnt the testing department more morally responsible than the designer or the assembly line worker that was in charge of installing the chip? Plus, in large corporations there may be several testing departments and is some cases one may be held more responsible than another depending on their involvement. A process like this can serve the dual purpose of finding irresponsible employees as well as those that are morally excused. The fourth mitigating factor in cases of this nature is the gauging of the seriousness of the fault or error caused by this product. Since National Semiconductor was repeatedly being reinstated to the listed of approved government contractors, one can safely assume that the level of seriousness, in the opinion of For the contractor approval committees, is not of monumental importance. Yet one has to wonder how this case would have been different if the lack of testing did cause the loss of life in either a domestic or foreign military setting. Perhaps the repercussions would have come faster much more stringent. The fact that National Semiconductor did not cause a death does not make them a safe company. They are still to be held responsible for any errors that their products cause, no matter the magnitude. As for the opposition to the delegating of moral responsibility, mitigating factors and excusing factors, they would argue that the entityT within a corporation should not be forced to bring out all of the employees responsible into a public forum. A company should be reprimanded and be left alone to carry out its own internal investigation and repercussions. From a business law perspective this is the ideal case since a corporation is defined as being a separate legal entity. Furthermore, the opposition would argue that this resolution would benefit both the company and the government since it would not inconvenience either party. The original resolution in the National Semiconductor case was along these lines. The government permanently removed National from its approved contractors list and then National set out to untangle the web of culpability within its own confines. This allowed a relatively quick resolution as well as the ideal scenario for National Semiconductor. In response, one could argue that the entity of a corporation has no morals or even a concept of the word, it is only as moral and ethical as the employees that work in that entity. All of the employees, including top ranking executives are working towards advancing the entity known as their corporation (Capitman, 117). All employees, including the sub-contractors and assembly line workers, are in some part morally responsible because they should