Case A Sole Remaining Supplier The heart pacemaker is a modern wonder. The device has a timer that resets itself every time the patient's heart beats. If the heart does not beat on schedule (say, within 1.2 seconds), the pacemaker gives a stimulus that causes a heartbeat. But the technology was not always so sophisticated, and its early limitations form the background of this true story, told to Markkula Center for Applied Ethics Director Thomas Shanks, S.J., by one of the participants. Although the events happened 20 years ago, the ethical issues they raise are still relevant. It's 1975, and you are on the board of directors of a company that makes transistors. Among the many companies with whom you have a contract is one that makes heart pacemakers. Pacemaker technology is in its infancy. When doctors implant a pacemaker, the patient's normal heartbeat is disabled, and he or she relies entirely on the device. If it fails, the patient's heart stops. Doctors are not very adept at installing the pacemakers, which are extremely delicate; there is even a story of a person yawning deeply, pulling the pacemaker wire in his chest, and dying. After that and many similar incidents, the board begins to reconsider whether your company should sell to the pacemaker company. Members of the board feel this situation is a major lawsuit just waiting to happen and your company, as well as the company you supply, will be liable. In addition, you feel the specs the pacemaker company uses to test the transistors are not very strong. You and the board decide to get out of the business before it's too late. You tell the pacemaker company representatives about your conclusion, and they respond, "You can't stop selling us the transistors. You are the sole remaining supplier for us. Everyone else has backed out for the same reasons you're giving. If you don't sell us the product, we'll go out of business. Pretty soon, no one will be making heart pacemakers, and many people need them. Without the pacemaker, people don't even have a chance." You take that information back to the board. People around the table have different opinions. One person says, "This is a bad deal, and it isn't our problem. We don't make enough on this sale to make the risk worthwhile." Another person says, "We don't know how other companies use the transistors we sell them; why should we be concerned about this one? What about that baby who died when the transistor in the incubator failed? We didn't know how that company was using the transistor." Another person says, "I think we're missing the real issue here. Don't we have an ethical obligation to sell the product to the pacemaker company? What will happen if we don't sell to them?" Another person says, "Give me a break. Our only obligation is to our shareholders. And how did we get so stupid that we're the last source? I'm telling you, we don't need this." Finally, the chair of the board says, "OK. Let's make a decision." What do you do? This case was written by Thomas Shanks, S.J., Executive Director of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.Case B Outsourcing The Case of the Plant Relocation By Karen Musalo Production costs are rising. Your company can make more money for shareholders by relocating your plants to a country with lower labor costs and fewer regulations. Using this case, Stan Raggio, senior vice president for sourcing and logistics at The Gap, and Karen Musalo, then director of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics International Human Rights and Migration Project, discussed the ethical issues companies should consider at an Ethics Roundtable for Executives. You are the chief executive of Electrocorp, an electronics company, which makes the onboard computer components for automobiles. In your production plants, complex hydrocarbon solvents are used to clean the chips and other parts that go into the computer components. Some of the solvents used are carcinogens and must be handled with extreme care. Until recently, all of your production plants were located in the United States. However, the cost of production has risen, causing profits to decline. A number of factors have increased production costs. First, the union representing the workers in your plant waged a successful strike resulting in increased salary and benefits. The pay and benefits package for beginning employees is around $15/hour. A second factor has been stringent safety regulations. These safety procedures, which apply inside the plant, have been expensive in both time and money. Finally, environmental regulations have made Electrocorp's operations more costly. Electrocorp is required to put its waste through an expensive process before depositing it at a special disposal facility. Shareholders have been complaining to you about the declining fortunes of the company. Many of Electrocorp's competitors have moved their operations to less-developed countries, where their operating costs are less than in the United States, and you have begun to consider whether to relocate a number of plants to offshore sites. Electrocorp is a major employer in each of the U.S. cities where it is located, and you know that a plant closure will cause economic dislocation in these communities. You know that the employees who will be laid off because of plant closures will have difficulty finding equivalent positions and that increased unemployment, with its attendant social costs, will result. However, you are aware of many other corporations, including your competitors, that have shut down their U.S. operations, and it is something that you are willing to consider. You have hired a consultant, Martha Smith, to investigate the sites for possible plant relocation. Ms. Smith has years of experience working with companies that have moved their operations to less-developed countries to reduce their operating costs. Based on your own research, you have asked Ms. Smith to more fully investigate the possibility of operations in Mexico, the Philippines, and South Africa. A summary of her report and recommendation for each country follows: Mexico A number of border cities in Mexico would be cost-efficient relocation sites based on both labor, and health and safety/environmental factors. Workers in production plants comparable to Electrocorp's earn about $3 per day, which is the prevailing wage. There is frequent worker turnoverbecause employees complain that they cannot live on $3/day, and they head