Readthe Toyota Motor Corporation and Employee Suggestion System .docx

Readthe Toyota Motor Corporation and Employee "Suggestion"
System case that can be found in the sixth chapter of the
textbook. Using ethical theories and principles learned in this
course, especially subsidiarity and natural law, analyze the
moral worth of the decisions made by Toyota. Also discuss the
various options open to Toyota, and choose the one you think
would have been the best. Justify the choice you make using
resources from this course. You are encouraged to submit your
own threads to this discussion as well as respond to threads left
by other students. 350 words.
Lecture:
https://youtu.be/c-5-Aedyc6c
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/
Rubric:
Toyota Motor Corporation and Employee “Suggestion” System:
The principle of subsidiarity can be applied to business settings
for reasons that go beyond poverty alleviation. The practices of
a division of Toyota Motor Corporation are a case in point.
In 2012, Toyota sold more cars than any other company in the
world, with an estimated 9.71 million vehicle sales. It has spent
many years at the top of the sales list and although it has had
some issues with recalls in the past several years and leadership
stumbles, overall it is highly respected and regarded as an
innovative company. One reason for this is the Toyota
Production System (TPS), which differs significantly from the
systems that have historically been used in US car production.
A joint collaboration in Fremont, California, between General
Motors (GM) and Toyota that began in the early 1980s
illustrates the differences in the US and Toyota systems and
how the principle of subsidiarity relates. There had previously

been a GM plant in Fremont, but it was the worst production
facility in the US system due to the systems in place there, the
relationship between management and workers, and the poor
work ethic and drug and alcohol culture of workers. After it was
shut down, it sat idle and no new industry moved into the
facility. Toyota suggested this site as a place where GM and
Toyota could collaborate. Toyota offered to teach GM all of its
production facility secrets if GM taught Toyota how to work
within the US market. Although Toyota had been exporting cars
to the United States, it wanted to open production facilities
here.
The first step of the working relationship involved former
Fremont United Auto Workers workers going to Japan to for
two-week training sessions. Then when enough employees were
trained, the California location could open and begin
production. When the US workers first arrived at the Toyota
plant in Japan, they could not believe how different the
production line was. In the TPS, managers and employees work
together. Everything has a team-based approach. Each
individual has a job to complete, but each is part of a group and
a team with a leader. If someone makes a mistake or cannot
keep up with production or there is some issue on the line, the
worker will pull a cord that alerts others with a light and a
happy little song that there is an issue. If the worker and others
who come to help cannot resolve the issue, they pull the cord
again and stop the entire production line. As soon as the issue is
resolved, the line begins again.
After the issue is resolved, someone at the company would later
find out how the issue could be dealt with in the future so there
is no need to stop the line. If an employee offers a suggestion
for a different type of tool or a different arrangement for
storage and availability of tools or anything else that ultimately
saves the company money due to a smoother production process,
that employee will receive several hundred dollars in a bonus.
This is part of what the Japanese call kaizen, or continuous
improvement. Everyone is expected to make suggestions to

improve the production process and maintain a focus on the
quality, not the quantity, of the products. This explains why the
US workers saw mats for the workers to stand on, cushions for
them to kneel on, and shelves that travel along with them while
they’re working to make reaching for tools easier and more
efficient.
Although recent information is not available, the phenomenon
of the Creative Idea
Solution
System was documented in the the 1980s and early 1990s. The
system was begun in 1951 and between that time and 1988,
about 20 million suggestions were turned in. It got to the point
at which two million suggestions were turned in each year at a
rate of forty suggestions per year per worker. About 95 percent
of employees participated in the program and their suggestions
were adopted at an astonishing 96 percent rate. This system
made it very clear to employees that they were an integral part
of the team, they were an expert in what they did on the line,
their feedback was critical to the company’s success, and
quality of process and product were highly valued.
In contrast, the US workers explained that they were trained not
to ever stop the production line for any reason whatsoever.
Henry Ford’s focus on the production line from the very
beginning was quantity. If there was an error, the car should
continue through the production process and could be fixed

later. Everyone had to keep up with the timing of the system in
order to maintain the quantity targets. The Fremont workers
explained that if the bumper for a different type of car was on
the line to be placed on the wrong car, they were to put on the
wrong bumper and everything else around it and then it would
be brought out to a lot to be fixed later. Workers could earn
overtime fixing the cars, even though they might not have the
expertise for the particular type of work they were doing. Not
only did the workers have to continue the movement of the line
if a car part was wrong or installed incorrectly but also if
someone fell into a pit or had a heart attack, everything was to
continue. No one ever asked the workers how consistent issues
could be fixed. The workers and management did not get along
at all and even though the system made costly errors and had
sacrificed quality for quantity, the system remained in place.
The US workers interviewed discussed how embarrassed and
ashamed they were at seeing the systems in Japan and knowing
how flawed the US system was. A YouTube video created on
the twentieth anniversary of the collaboration explains that the
workers learned the five cornerstones of the Toyota system:
mutual trust and respect, involvement, teamwork, safety, and
equity. UAW workers discussed how easy it was to say
something like mutual trust and respect need to be part of the
workplace, but that it is something that must be part of the
culture and must be worked toward. Although the plant itself

won many awards after it opened, the UAW leadership
explained that the real winners were the workers on the line
who were making good wages, making a top-quality car, and
keeping a previously closed plant alive for the workers’ jobs.
Workers described their happiness, enjoyment of their jobs,
pride at the products they produced, and the way they were able
to support their families.
In
the
case
of
Shell
Oil
in
Nigeria,
written
John
Boatright,
the
three
moral

agents,
whose
actions
need
ethical
evaluation
are:
Ken
Saro-‐Wiwa,
the
Nigerian
government,
and
the
Royal
Dutch/Shell
Corporation.
Possibly
the
one
fundamental

issue
that
both
bothers,
and
ensures
the
continuation
of
ethical
and
moral
debate
is
that
they
are
largely
ambiguous
and
seldom

agreed
upon.
However,
I
believe
the
most
effective
approach
to
the
Shell
Oil
in
Nigeria
case
is
both
a
deontological,
and

consequential
evaluation.
I
will
evaluate
the
consequences
that
resulted
from
our
three
moral
agents
actions,
and
will
speculate
on
how
these
consequences
could

have
been
otherwise
had
they
acted
differently.
Deontologically,
I
will
evaluate
to
whom,
and
what
these
three
moral
agents
were
responsible

and
how
they
either
honored
or
neglected
these
responsibilities.
The
ethical
evaluation
these
two
moral
theories,
or
better
put,
approaches
to

ethically
evaluating
morality,
conclude:
Ken
Saro-‐Wiwa’s
actions
are
not
completely
known,
and
therefore
a
judgment
cannot
be
made.
The
Nigerian
government’s

actions,
regarding
Saro-‐Wiwa,
because
of
their
inconclusive
nature,
cannot
be
judged,
however,
their
military
actions
against
their
citizens
are
condemnable
as

are
their
actions
of
intercepting,
diverting
and
hording
governmental
funds.
The
Royal
Dutch/Shell
Corporation’s
actions
regarding
both
their
reluctance
to
take

action
in
the
Saro-‐Wiwa
case,
and
in
their
interactions
with
the
government
may
not
be
condonable,
however,
they
are
not,
judging
from
the

information
given,
condemnable.
Ken
Saro-‐Wiwa
was
arrested
for,
and
found
guilty
of
ordering
the
murder
of
several

Ogoni
chiefs
who
were
suspected
of
collaborating
with
the
military
government
of
Nigeria.
Though
our
author
Boatright
depicts
Saro-‐Wiwa,
as
an

advocate
of
both
peace
and
nonviolence
he
did
reject
MOSOP’s
proposed
strategy
to
cooperate
with
the
federal
government
to
reduce
violence

in
return
for
concessions.
It
is
this
detail
that,
I
believe,
must
be
given
more
emphasis
than
our
author
grants.
Just

prior
to
the
murders
for
which
Saro-‐Wiwa
was
eventually
hanged
there
was
division
amongst
MOSOP
leadership
and,
I
think,
it
must
assumed,
at

least
according
to
the
case
study,
that
one
of
the
principle
issues
causing
the
disagreement
and
division
amongst
leadership
must
have

been
whether
or
not
to
cooperate
with
the
government
to
reduce
violence
in
return
for
concession;
an
issue
that
Saro-‐Wiwa
was

opposed
to.
We
do
not,
from
the
case
study,
have
enough
information
necessary
to
make
a
concrete
judgment
of
Saro-‐Wiwa’s
guilt
or
innocence.

For
example
the
concessions
the
government
was
offering
MOSOP
may
have
been
hollow;
however,
Saro-‐Wiwa’s
noncompliance
with
the
government,
even
in

the
face
of
MOSOP
compliance,
would
be
reason
enough
to
believe
that
he
may
have
been
associated
with
the
organizing
of

the
murders
for
which
he
was
executed.
I
am
in
no
position
to
make
a
determination
on
whether
or
not
Saro-‐Wiwa
did
in

fact
order
the
murders
of
the
eight
men,
however,
I
can
determine
that,
with
the
information
given
me,
it
is
too

inconclusive
for
me
to
assume
that
he
did
not
order
their
murders.
I
believe
that
the
assumption
that
he
did
not
order
the

murders
informed
the
actions
of
world
leaders,
human
rights
activist,
journalistic
critics,
and
the
author
of
this
case
study.
Therefore,
depending

on
your
position
on
capital
punishment,
the
Nigerian
government’s
hanging
of
Saro-‐Wiwa
is
an
action
that
can
neither
be
condemned
nor

condoned
because
it
was
an
action
taken
for
reasons
that
have
not
been
made
clear.
The
Nigerian
government’s
action
in

relation
to
the
execution
of
Saro-‐Wiwa
cannot
necessarily
be
condemned;
however,
their
general
treatment
of
their
citizens
is
condemnable.
In
this

case
we
are
primarily
concerned
with
the
Nigerian
government’s
action
involving
Saro-‐Wiwa’s
execution
and
their
relationship
with
the
Royal
Dutch/Shell
Corporation.

Through
a
deontological
lens
we
see
that
the
Nigerian
government
has
a
responsibility
to
look
after
and
protect
the
citizens
that

constitute
it’s
country.
The
Nigerian
government
honored
its
responsibility
to
protect
the
employees
working
for
the
Royal
Dutch/Shell
Corporation,
many
of

which
I
would
assume
were
also
citizens.
Although
the
vigilante
attacks
against
the
Royal
Dutch/Shell
workers
may
have
been
an
ill
advise
and

isolated
instance
among
a
larger
more
ethical
effort
there
were
people
harmed,
people
who
were
not
in
positions
of
power
and

were
therefore
not
directly
responsible
for
the
action
of
their
employer.
As
a
result
it
was
duteous
of
the
Nigerian
government
to
respond

with
armed
protection
for
the
Royal
Dutch/Shell
employees.
However,
if
the
government
did,
in
fact,
take
these
efforts
beyond
the
threatened

confines
to
repress
local
population
these
latter
actions,
unlike
the
former,
would
be
ethically
condemnable.
An
assertion
that

can
be
made
with
much
more
certainty
is
the
condemning
of
the
Nigeria
government’s
intercepting
and
hording
of
funding
that
was
intended

for
governmental
reinvestment.
The
staggering
gap
between
Nigeria’s
elite
and
the
poor
whom,
according
to
1994
estimates,
live
off
approximately
$300
a

year
definitely
makes
explicit
a
responsibility
the
Nigerian
government
was
neglecting,
neglect
that
is
worth
condemning.
Lastly,
and
concerning
this
case

most
pressing,
is
the
Nigerian
government’s
execution
of
Saro-‐Wiwa.
As
I
have
mentioned
earlier,
capital
punishment
agendas
aside,
this

action
cannot
be
condemned
or
condoned
without
first
evaluating
and
determining
whether
or
not
Saro-‐Wiwa
was
or
was
not
instrumental
in

the
ordering
of
the
murders
he
was
executed
for.
Making
this
determination
has
been
made
impossible
both
by
the
unrest
that
occurred
around

his
sentence,
a
sentence
that
would
not
typically
be
disputed
if
it
were
believed
to
be
rooted
in
truth,
and
by

Boatright’s
description
of
the
jury
as
a
“kangaroo
court”.
Another
consideration
highlighting
the
inconclusiveness
of
Saro-‐Wiwa’s
involvement
in
the
murders,
which

may
actually
suggest
that
he
was
indeed
involved,
which
is
contrary
to
the
apparent
popular
position,
is
that
he
was
very

strongly
opposed
to
any
sort
of
compliance
with
the
Nigerian
government.
The
extremity
of
his
opposition
was
evident
from
his
disagreement
with
MOSOP’s

proposed
cooperation
with
the
Nigerian
government;
an
issue
that
created
division
amongst
the
leadership
of
MOSOP,
an
organization
of
which
Saro-‐Wiwa

was
a
founder.
As
a
result
of
this
last
consideration
I
do
not
think,
even
considering
his
previous
nonviolent
position,
that

he
can
be
ruled
out
of
involvement,
in
fact,
I
would
go
as
far
as
to
suggest
that
the
position
he
was
in

during
the
murders
would
make
him
a
very
likely
suspect.
Deontologically,
the
Nigerian
government’s
action,
regarding
their
handling
of
the
murders,

were,
depending
of
course
on
the
validity
of
their
judiciary
conviction,
condonable,
in
so
far
as
criminal
punishment
is
one
of

the
primary
responsibilities
of
a
government.
However,
because
of
the
inconclusive
nature
of
the
crime
I
believe
the
Nigerian
government’s
action
of
executing

Saro-‐
Wiwa
is
neither
condonable
nor
condemnable.
In
our
ethical
evaluation
we
must
approach
the
Royal
Dutch/Shell
Corporation

differently
than
the
moral
agents
previously
considered
because
they
are
primary
being
evaluated
for
the
moral
worth
of
their
inaction.
We
must
ethically

evaluate
their
intentions
and
motivations
for
inaction
and
can
only
speculate
on
what
influence
their
action
may
have
had.
The
Royal

Dutch/Shell
Corporation,
which,
for
the
sake
of
convenience,
I
will
refer
to
as
“Shell”
in
this
paragraph,
had
responsibilities
to
both

the
safety
of
their
employees,
and
the
company’s
overall
well
being.
As
a
result
of
their
responsibility
to
their
employees
Shell
enlisted
the

protection
offered
by
the
Nigerian
government
following
vigilante
attacks
that
were
tied
to
the
MOSOP
organization.
Although
Shell
purchased
arms
to

aid
the
Nigerian
government’s
protection
of
their
employees,
they
were,
allegedly,
not
involved
in,
or
aware
of
the
oppressive
efforts
the

Nigerian
government
thereafter
used
the
arms
to
conduct.
Therefore,
Shell’s
providing
the
Nigerian
government
with
guns
is
not
a
condemnable
act

because
it
was
action
taken
to
honor
the
responsibility
of
ensuring
the
safety
of
their
employees
and
the
oppressive
consequences
that
came
from

the
Nigerian
governments
use
of
these
guns
cannot
be
attributed
to
the
Shell
Corporation.
Shell
was
also
responsible

for
guaranteeing
the
general
well
being
of
their
corporation.
Resulting
from
this
responsibility
Shell
was
reluctant
to
implement
their
influence
on

the
Nigerian
government,
even
though
they
were
responsible
for
almost
40%
of
the
government’s
income.
Shell
was
reluctant
to
intervene
with
the

governmental
affairs
concerning
Saro-‐Wiwa’s
execution
both
because
the
Nigerian
government
was
a
55%
stakeholder,
and
because,
though
it
sounds
a
bit
morbid,

Saro-‐Wiwa’s
execution
was,
if
at
all,
only
loosely
related
to
the
Shell
Corporation.
By
definition
stakeholders
are,
“those
groups

without
whose
support
the
organization
would
cease
to
exist.”
This
definition
would
seem
to
hold
doubly
true
considering
that
the
Nigerian

government
was
the
majority
stakeholder.
Though
it
is
arguable
that
Shell
would
most
definitely
have
been
able
to
influence
the
Nigerian

government,
it
could
have
been
a
self-‐sacrificial
act
for
a
cause
that
was
too
external
to
the
Shell
Corporation
or
any
conduct
that

they
had
been
involved
in.
Our
deontological
and
consequential
ethical
evaluation
of
Shell
Oil
in
Nigeria
exposes
the
extreme
complexities

inherent
to
multinational
corporations
such
as
the
Royal
Dutch/Shell
Corporation.
Unfortunately
these
complexities
are
often
missing
from
the
majority
of
journalism

and
are
replaced
with
that
author’s
implicit
judgment.
In
fact,
Boatright
offers
an
example
in
his
Shell
Oil
in
Nigeria.
In
the

second
sentence
of
the
case
study
Boatright
writes,
“The
Nigerian
junta,
headed
at
the
time
by
General
Sani
Abacha,
was
criticized
worldwide

for
bringing
trumped-‐up
charges
against
Saro-‐Wiwa
and
fourteen
co-‐defendants
in
order
to
suppress
a
resistance
movement
that
had
criticized
the
operations

of
Shell
Oil
Company
in
the
oil-‐rich
Ogoniland
regian
of
Nigeria.”
Whether
or
not
this
sentence
was
intended
to
influence
the

reader
is
debatable,
however
it
does
draw
a
misleading
tie
between
the
Shell
Corporation
and
Saro-‐Wiwa’s
arrest.
An
arrest
which
was
for
his

alleged
involvement
in
the
murdering
of
Ogoni
chiefs.
Without
this
strange,
and
rather
forced
connection
made,
Shell’s
actual
relation
to
the

Saro-‐Wiwa
case,
which
was
minimal
if
existent
at
all,
would
have
been
much
more
apparent.
However,
with
this
connection
as
his

first
premises,
Boatright
goes
on
to
construct
an
implicit
argument
against
Shell,
often
quoting
sources
that
were
critical
of
Shell’s
inaction

and
Shell
officials
who
were
ill
advised
to
comment.
It
is
also
a
bit
curious
to
ponder
why
Boatright
never
cites

the
Shell
sources
he
quotes,
while
he
makes
sure
to,
on
two
occasions,
cite
critical
sources
from
the
New
York
Times.
Boatright
concludes

his
case
study,
which
in
actuality
is
more
of
an
implicit
and
subtle
argument,
by
noting
that,
“Within
a
week
of

Ken
Saro-‐Wiwa’s
death,
Shell
announced
plans
for
a
$4
billion
liquefied
natural
gas
plant
in
a
partnership
with
the
Nigerian
government.”

An
obvious
implication
to
depict
Shell
as
insensitive
and
to
put
the
finishing
touches
on
his
condemnation
of
Shell.
The
primary
reason
that

I
raise
such
a
point
is
that
journalism
and
reporting
done
in
such
a
manner
allows
people
sitting
at
home
in

their
armchairs
to
make
quick
and
uninformed
judgments
about
world
affairs.
Journalism
created
in
this
fashion
fallaciously
turns
the
reporting
of
facts
into

didactic
propaganda
and
compromises
the
ethical
worth
of
journalism
as
a
whole.
Work Cited:
Santoro, Michael A.. “Case Study: Chrysler and Gao Feng:
Corporate Responsibility for
Religious and Political Freedom in China.” 227-229.

O’Brien, Thomas and Scott Paeth. Religious Perspectives on
Business Ethics. Lanham,
Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc., 2007.
"Stakeholder (corporate)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_(corporate)
(accessed 07/09/2009).
Case
Analysis

2
Distributive
Justice
and
Shell
Oil
In
Nigeria
Among some of the world’s largest multinational firms, there
are corrupt business
practices, government regulations and high paid executives that
taint the world renowned success
of companies. Many companies are primarily consumed with the
goal of profit maximization to
the point where they forsake the fundamental means of survival
within a community ranging
from the safety of the environment to the detriment or death of

civilians. Distributive justice is
the impartial appointment of resources (opportunity, wealth,
jobs, etc.) by an official throughout
a community.1 As seen in many cases, especially Shell Oil in
Nigeria, the allocation of resources
is not, by any means, equally distributed. The allotment of
resources is not objectively given to
the Ogoniland citizens, instead, the government and its officials
along with the Shell Corporation
are receiving the most benefits from the economic activity of
producing oil.
According to the strict egalitarianism distributive principle, all
individuals should receive
an equal share of what is being distributed. As Nigeria produces
around ten billion dollars of oil
per year, the wealth should be equally divided and allocated to
the community. Instead, the

Nigerian government receives 55%, Shell receives 30% and a
French and Italian company
receives 15% of the total profits.2 Because the oil is produced
in Nigeria, the community should
receive some type of incentives from the economic activity of
oil production. It is noticeably
apparent that all individuals were not given the opportunity to
receive equal share of the wealth
that was distributed. While most Nigerian citizens managed to
survive on a couple hundreds of
dollars per year, government officials were living the most
sumptuous lifestyles while obtaining
luxury cars and foreign bank accounts.3 When the military
government eradicated most

1
Lamount,
Juilian.
"Distributive
Justice."
Stanford
Encyclopedia
Online.
Stanford:
The
Metaphysics
Research
Lab,
2007.

2
Boatright,
John.
Ethics
and
the
Conduct
of
Business,
“Shell
Oil
In
Nigeria.”
Prentice
Hall,
March
2006.
3
Boatright,
John.
Ethics
and

the
Conduct
of
Business,
“Shell
Oil
In
Nigeria.”
Prentice
Hall,
March
2006.
Case
Analysis
2
Distributive
Justice
and
Shell
Oil
In

Nigeria
democratic institutions in which citizens could express their
interests and concerns, people were
forced to coincide with the allocation of wealth of the oil
production.
Had the Nigerian officials followed the strict egalitarianism
principle, they would have
created an equal distribution of revenue throughout the
community. Instead of the Nigerian
government receiving the majority of profits, the revenues
should have been divided equally
among the community of Ogoniland including its residents, the
Nigerian government, Shell
Company, the French and Italian company.

Examining this case from the perspective of a utilitarian
egalitarianism principle would
indicate that the allocation of resources should be distributed in
such a way that the greatest
numbers of people are benefited.4 In the case of Shell Oil in
Nigeria, the government fails to
distribute resources based on the greatest good for the greatest
number of people. While Shell’s
oil production is located in Ogoniland, the citizens are
ultimately affected the most without any
regards. Seeing that 500,000 Ogoniland citizens are living in
impoverished and over populated
conditions, the oil spills and burning of natural gas from Shell
only exacerbates the current
problems of the community. The health of Ogoniland and
surrounding city citizens are put at risk
while the pollution is ultimately affecting the environment. As

aforementioned, most revenues
from the Shell operations in Ogoniland are squandered away by
the government and Shell Oil
while the city of Ogoniland rarely receives any benefits from its
operations. Shell Oil supposedly
invested roughly around 6% (20 mil/312 mil) of its profits back
into the community by “building
schools, hospitals and other services”.5 However, some of those
contributions were used to
enhance the working conditions of Shell Nigeria rather than
focusing on giving back to the

4
Lamount,
Juilian.
"Distributive
Justice."
Stanford
Encyclopedia
Online.
Stanford:
The
Metaphysics
Research
Lab,
2007.
5
Boatright,
John.
Ethics

and
the
Conduct
of
Business.,
“Shell
Oil
In
Nigeria.”
Prentice
Hall,
March
2006.
Case
Analysis
2
Distributive
Justice
and
Shell
Oil

In
Nigeria
community.6 The allocation of resources were geared towards
and primarily concerned with the
well being of Shell Oil and Nigerian government and its
officials.
If the Nigerian government and Shell Oil had followed the
utilitarian egalitarianism
principle, everyone in the entire community- without a biased
focus on one particular party-
should benefit from the production of oil in Ogoniland. Citizens
of Ogoniland and surrounding
communities should receive more incentives while lessening the
detrimental health affects that
the oil production induces. Shell Oil should receive a

reasonable but equal amount of profit while
they develop ways in which the oil production can be less
harmful to the environment. The
Nigerian government should also receive a reasonable but equal
amount of profit as they focus
on improving the Nigerian economy and means of life for
Ogoniland citizens. The French and
Italian company should also receive a reasonable proportion of
the profits.
Furthermore, John Rawl’s Difference Principle suggests that
positions must be open and
fair to all and that distribution disparities are only allowed
when the least advantaged individuals
are given the greatest benefits.7 In the case of Shell Oil in
Nigeria, the citizens of Ogoniland are
excluded from the benefits of the production of oil in Nigeria.
The greatest benefit of Shell

operations in Nigeria is the massive amount of revenue it
generates, however, that wealth is not
being spread evenly throughout the society as mentioned
previously. The citizens of Ogoniland
are, unquestionably, the least advantaged party in this case. The
city is over populated as is and
the emission of the gases makes the living conditions of the
citizens even harder than it was
initially. Alongside, the citizens are forced to abode in these
conditions without their consent
because their government limited their democratic freedoms.
The production of oil in Ogoniland

6
Boatright,
John.
Ethics
and
the
Conduct
of
Business.,
“Shell
Oil
In
Nigeria.”
Prentice
Hall,
March
2006

7
Garrett,
J.
"Rawls
on
Justice."
Rawls
on
Justice.
3
Sept.
2002.
Western
Kentucky
University.
11
Feb.
2009
<http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/ethics/johnrawl.htm>
Case

Analysis
2
Distributive
Justice
and
Shell
Oil
In
Nigeria
did not benefit the citizens the least bit in comparison to the
benefits that government officials
and Shell Company received. The 20 million dollars that was
allegedly donated to the
community did not increase the quality of the Ogoniland
citizens’ lives as much increased the
productivity of the Shell Oil Plant in Ogoniland. Furthermore,
the surrounding communities of

Ogoniland had been invaded and raided by the task force who
killed civilians and destroyed the
personal property of the civilians. As a result, the Nigerian
officials and the Shell Company
violates the second principal of John Rawl’s Difference
Principle as the least advantaged party
was not given the greatest benefit.
If John Rawl’s Difference Principle was taken into account by
the Nigerian government
and Shell Company, the community of Ogoniland should be
receiving the most benefits. They
should not be living in impoverished and over populated
conditions seeing how lucrative the oil
production is in Ogoni. There should be more public and
community enhancing resources (i.e.
schools, libraries, hospitals, parks) available to the citizens of
Ogoni. Also, the citizen’s of Ogoni

should not be threatened by such horrible health conditions that
Shell is producing. Shell should
implement a plan that reduces the amounts of pollution being
emitted or somehow provides a
more “green” environment for the community.
In conclusion, Shell Company and the Nigerian government did
not effectively apply the
principles of distributive justice in this case. Both parties were
consumed by the profits that they
were receiving while discounting the environment and lives of
Ogoniland citizens.
Case

Analysis
2
Distributive
Justice
and
Shell
Oil
In
Nigeria
! ! 1!
Dr.!O’Brien!
Case!Study!#3!

26!February!2009!
Kohlberg!and!“What!Price!Safety?”!
How!should!we!deal!with!this!problem?!This!is!the!question!th
at!every!
company!must!answer!at!one!point!or!another,!and!it!is!the!qu
estion!Motorola!was!
faced!with!in!the!case!“What!Price!Safety?”.!Tommy,!an!empl
oyee,!was!refusing!to!
wear!his!protective!goggles!in!accordance!with!safety!regulatio
ns!and!so!his!
supervisor,!Victor,!eventually!“lost!control!of!his!temper…and
!slapped!him!several!
times,”!(“What!Price!Safety?”).!Tommy!now!suffers!from!hear
ing!impairment.!
However,!while!it!is!never!okay!for!a!supervisor!to!hit!another
!employee,!we!will!see!

that!he!may!not!have!had!a!choice!because!Tommy!was!behavi
ng!at!such!a!low!
moral!level.!This!paper!will!focus!mainly!on!classifying!the!ac
tions!of!the!two!
employees!based!on!Lawrence!Kohlberg’s!stages!of!judgment,!
and!determining!the!
best!decision!for!Motorola!to!make.!
!
Lawrence!Kohlberg!was!not!the!first!person!to!classify!individ
uals!into!stages!
based!on!their!moral!judgment.!In!fact,!Kohlberg!actually!mod
eled!his!taxonomy!off!
of!that!of!Jean!Piaget,!a!Swiss!philosopher!who!was!well!kno
wn!for!his!theory!of!
cognitive!development.!(Huitt)!“Piaget!studied!many!aspects!o
f!moral!judgment,!but!
most!of!his!findings!fit!into!a!two!stage!theory,”!(Crain).!The!

first!stage!included!
children!who!were!younger!than!10!or!11!who!see!rules!or!aut
hority!as!fixed;!rules,!
they!believe,!are!absolute!and!“are!handed!down!by!adults!or!
by!God,”!(Crain).!The!
! ! 2!
second!group,!including!all!children!older!than!11!years!of!age
,!believes!that!rules!
are!negotiable,!if!all!parties!are!willing!and!the!circumstances!
allow.!
!
Kohlberg!decided!to!take!this!type!of!thinking!even!further.!D
oing!so,!“he!
uncovered!six!stages,!only!the!first!three!of!which!share!many
!features!with!Piaget’s!

stages,”!(Crain).!These!six!stages!(seven!if!you!count!stage!ze
ro,!which!was!
developed!at!a!later!date)!are!phases!that!people!go!through!to
!become!further!
morally!developed!and!can!be!analogized!to!the!stages!that!chi
ldren!progress!
through!in!order!to!learn!intellectually.!The!first!stages!(stages
!0!through!2)!are!pre^
conventional;!that!is,!people!exhibiting!moral!behavior!in!thes
e!phases!are!classified!
as!ethically!immature!or!underdeveloped.!Subsequently,!stages
!3!and!4!exhibit!
conventional!morality,!or!what!is!morally!expected!of!a!person
!or!group;!stages!5!
and!6!are,!understandably!then,!post^conventional,!with!people
!who!are!classified!as!
unusually!developed!morally.!!

!
In!the!case!“What!Price!Safety?”,!Tommy,!the!worker!who!ref
used!to!wear!his!
protective!goggles,!was!operating!at!a!stage!one,!if!he!were!to
!be!classified!by!
Kohlberg’s!taxonomy.!His!sheer!refusal!to!comply!with!safety!
regulations!simply!
because!he!was!not!being!punished!exhibits!his!pre^convention
al!morality.!In!a!
stage!one,!or!the!Obedience/Punishment!stage,!individuals!beh
ave!in!a!manner!
where!“the!concern!is!with!what!authorities!permit!and!punish,
”!(Crain).!This!means!
that!an!individual!acts!based!only!on!what!the!potential!conseq
uences!could!be.!So,!
because!he!had!not!been!punished!before!the!incident!with!his!
supervisor,!he!felt!

that!he!could!keep!on!disregarding!the!rules.!!
! ! 3!
!
Victor,!Tommy’s!supervisor!in!the!case,!conversely,!is!acting!
at!a!higher!level.!
Although!it!may!appear!that!Victor’s!morality!would!be!classif
ied!as!pre^
conventional!(because!it!is!normally!seen!as!‘wrong’!to!hit!an
other!person),!it!can!be!
said!that!Victor!was!actually!acting!at!a!stage!four.!At!stage!f
our,!or!the!Law!and!
Order!stage,!“the!respondent!becomes!more!broadly!concerned!
with!society(as(a(
whole,”!(Crain).!Thus,!as!a!supervisor,!it!is!understandable!tha
t!Victor!was!acting!as!

a!leader,!and!was!concerned!with!the!public!order!that!comes!
with!his!authority.!It!
was!his!duty!to!be!a!positive!authority!figure!by!reprimanding!
Tommy!for!not!
complying!with!Motorola’s!policy.!!
!
The!company!now!must!decide!how!to,!if!at!all,!reprimand!bot
h!parties!
involved!in!this!case.!As!was!taught!in!class,!a!business!canno
t!usually!perform!
above!a!stage!two!or!three,!simply!because!it!has!a!responsibil
ity!to!consider!
multiple!parties!in!making!a!decision.!For!example,!if!Motorol
a!were!to!make!a!
decision!in!line!with!stage!five,!the!Social!Contract!stage,!the
y!would!have!to!decide!

to!keep!both!men!on!as!employees.!This!stage!may!even!requir
e!the!company!to!give!
the!men!raises,!as!this!would!be!in!their!best!interest.!Obvious
ly,!this!is!not!a!
potential!decision!for!Motorola,!simply!because!it!has!a!respon
sibility!to!show!the!
other!employees!that!neither!Victor’s!nor!Tommy’s!actions!wil
l!be!acceptable.!!
!
Thus,!Motorola!has!to!be!restrained!in!it’s!moral!judgment!and
!is!forced!to!
perform!at!a!stage!three,!or!the!Good!Boy/Good!Girl!level.!He
re,!the!company!can!
sow!good!will!by!suspending!Victor!and!possibly!moving!him!
to!another!
department.!Likewise,!the!company!must!also!sow!good!will!in
!the!company!

! ! 4!
through!also!suspending!Tommy!for!his!actions!and!failure!to!
comply!with!company!
policy.!In!making!these!decisions,!Motorola!is!allowing!the!me
n!to!keep!their!jobs,!
which!shows!genuine!interest!for!their!wellbeing,!but!it!is!also
!acting!in!an!egoistic!
mindset!in!that!it!must!consider!it’s!own!security!and!the!welf
are!of!other!
employees.!Stage!three!actions!are!often!said!to!be!“evaluated!
in!terms!of!
intentions”!(www.haverford.edu).!Since!Motorola!would!have!
good!intentions!in!
attempting!to!resolve!the!issue!in!this!proposed!way,!the!comp
any’s!actions!would!

be!in!line!with!stage!three!morality,!which!is!the!best!it!can!d
o.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Works!Cited!

“Case!Study,!What!Price!Safety?”!433^435.!
! ! 5!
Crain,!W.C.!“Kohlberg’s!Stages!of!Moral!Development”.!Theo
ries!of!Development.!
Prentice^Hall,!1985.!pp.!118^136.!<http://faculty.plts.edu/gpen
ce
/html/kohlberg.htm>!
!Huitt,!W.,!&!Hummel,!J.!Piaget's!theory!of!cognitive!develop
ment.!Educational(
Psychology(Interactive.!Valdosta,!GA:!Valdosta!State!Universi
ty!2003.!
<http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piaget.html>!
“Kohlberg’s!Moral!Stages”!http://www.haverford.edu/psych/dd
avis/p109g/!

kohlberg.stages.html!
!
!
Case Study #2: Use the following case and apply Catholic social
theory to it.
Each student will produce a paper consisting of at least 4 pages
(1,000 words). The papers will be typed in double space, 1.25"
margins and 12 pt Times New Roman font. This paper should
apply more than one of the themes of Catholic social thought to
the case.
• In this paper, students should focus on applying more than one
of the themes of Catholic social thought as these apply to the
case.
• The purpose of this paper is to deepen one's inquiry into the
subject matter by using a broader thematic palette when
analyzing a case study.
• This is not a superficial opinion papers, i.e.,what one liked or
didn't like about a particular case, or a simple statement of how

one would resolve the case.
• This paper should focus first on demonstrating knowledge of
ethical theories and principles.
• The paper should then thoroughly apply those theories or
principles to the specific case demonstrating the ways in which
they are alike or different from one another.
• You are not being graded on your opinion, or what you liked
or didn't like about a particular case, so spending a great deal of
time and space addressing these issues is not going to improve
your grade.
• Students should especially avoid sharing their opinions when
these are inconsistent with, or contradict the conclusions that
logically flow from the ethical comparison.
• Students should avoid attempting to compare more than two
theories or principles learned in the class. This will only result
in a superficial comparison.
• This paper should reflect a serious grappling with the
challenging issues raised by these ethical dilemmas.

Case: Homeboy Industries
Los Angeles, California, has long been known as the Gang
Capital of the World. According to the Los Angeles Police
Department, there are approximately 45,000 people in Los
Angeles who are members of more than 450 gangs. Gang
activity has devastating consequences for the neighborhoods,
businesses, schools, members, and nonmembers in the areas
where they flourish: the rates of robberies, rapes, homicides,
unemployment, high school dropouts, and poverty are all very
high. Children see little opportunity or options in the midst of a
violent neighborhood and opt for gang life to offer themselves
protection, income, and some semblance of community.
An area of Los Angeles called Boyle Heights had more gang
members as a percentage of the population in the 1980s than
anywhere else in the United States. In the mid-1980s, Fr. Greg
Boyle, S.J., asked to work in an impoverished area and was
assigned by his Jesuit superior to work in that neighborhood at
the Dolores Mission Church. The church was the poorest parish
in the archdiocese of Los Angeles and was located in the midst
of the largest public housing grouping in the western half of the
United States.
While pastor of the Dolores Mission, Fr. Greg and the leaders of
the parish decided to open up the doors of the parish grounds to
keep young people off the streets and learn what their needs
were. Fr. Greg presided over many funerals of young people he

knew, befriended many in prison where he regularly said Mass,
and sat with the women of the parish who cried when their own
or others’ children were murdered or incarcerated. As he got to
know the gang members and their families and neighbors, he
realized that many obstacles faced those who wanted to leave
gang life and start anew. Finding work was impossible in a
neighborhood where few businesses existed and leaving the
neighborhood did not seem to be an option. Banks would not
lend to someone wanting to start a business in the area and
people from outside the neighborhood were afraid to come
anywhere near.
Antigang initiatives throughout Los Angeles focused on a heavy
police presence, increased incarceration rates, “3 strikes and
you’re out,” and other heavy-handed penalties. Fr. Greg came to
understand that there were no alternatives for many of the
children, other than gangs. Fr. Greg tried to figure out how to
help with employment. One of the most basic issues faced by
many of the gang members was that they were heavily tattooed,
including on their face, neck, and entire forearms, and often had
many gang symbols visible. Teens could not be in school with
these tattoos, and employers would not offer a job to someone
with them. To alleviate this issue, the Dolores Mission created a
tattoo-removal clinic. Today they have thirty volunteer doctors
who remove an average of 745 tattoos every month for free.
The only businesses with job possibilities in the area were

factories. The Dolores Mission decided to start a Jobs for a
Future initiative. Hundreds of women passed out fliers to the
foremen of factories located near the parish, trying to get
interviews for people in the neighborhood. When nothing
materialized from those attempts, Dolores Mission developed
jobs in the area and worked hard to fund the salaries itself.
Although the parish was not in a financial situation to fully
fund the businesses within its regular budget, surprise donations
or other contributions would always materialize at the last
second so the enterprise could stay afloat. Fr. Greg found that a
job opportunity was 80 percent of what the people in the
neighborhood needed in order to make better decisions about
their future.
A wealthy Hollywood director called Fr. Greg to brainstorm
many different ways that he could invest in initiatives to help
the gang members get off the streets. Fr. Greg says that he had
to “respectfully dismiss” all of the ideas that the director came
up with. When the exasperated director finally asked Fr. Greg if
there was anything that could be done, Fr. Greg asked him to
buy an old, closed bakery, so they could start a business called
The Homeboy Bakery.
In spite of a fire that had originally burned the place down,
bomb threats, death threats, and hate mail,51 the bakery
survives to this day and the overall Homeboy Industries now
includes Homegirl Café and Catering, Homeboy Diner,

Homeboy Farmers Markets, Homeboy Grocery, and Homeboy
Silk Screening and Embroidery. These enterprises allow people
to learn the basic skills of showing up on time (every time
they’re scheduled) putting up with a boss, and working
alongside their former enemies. The Homeboy Industries budget
for 2012 was approximately $14,700,000, with the social
enterprises bringing in around $3,500,000. The goal is not to
ultimately make money in these social enterprises. Fr. Greg
says, “We don’t hire homies to bake bread, we bake bread to
hire homies.”
If the 80 percent need for employment skills is taken care of,
Fr. Greg says that there is a 20 percent need for other types of
services for those formerly in gangs. In addition to the tattoo
removal, an employment services division acts as an
intermediary between the clients looking for work and the
potential employers. The division has a mental health, substance
abuse, and domestic violence prevention program, as well as a
full-time lawyer who can help with the many of the issues that
former gang members face. The employment services division
also offers extensive education classes, with more than 400
trainees and community clients, engaged in forty-five different
classes each month, ranging from high school equivalency
classes, to financial literacy courses and even “Baby and Me”
classes. People from the neighborhood utilize these services as
do people released from the prison, the detention center, and the

juvenile probation camps.
Homeboy Industries has been a resounding success. Fr. Greg
Boyle is invited to speak all over the country about Homeboy
Industries and often brings some of the homies with him. Other
communities in the United States and around the world have
asked how to build the Homeboy model of their own. Fr. Greg
says that the goals of Homeboy Industries is not to “franchise”
their model but for other communities to understand their own
situation and the types of ownership required in their location:
“We have a hyper-reverence for the dynamics of other
communities rather than a need to import our model. We are not
proposing a one-size-fits all model, but a way of proceeding.
We help others understand elements of our own culturally-
competent model so that they can develop and refine their own.”

Readthe Toyota Motor Corporation and Employee Suggestion System .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Readthe Toyota Motor Corporation and Employee Suggestion System .docx

Similar to Readthe Toyota Motor Corporation and Employee Suggestion System .docx (11)

More from audeleypearl

More from audeleypearl (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Readthe Toyota Motor Corporation and Employee Suggestion System .docx