C. Goodson 1

Colby Goodson

Dr. William Abshire

PHIL 320E-02

7 December 2015

Case Analysis

V

For the case, “Stirling Bridge’s Unloading of Surplus Tools,” it is important to first look

at the facts from the case itself. Melvin Gibson, whom graduated from Georgetown University’s

School of Business, accepted a position as a manager at the Stirling Bridge Tool and Machinery

which is a corporation which manufactures industrial equipment. Over time Gibson has moved

his way up through the ranks and currently is the vice president of the power tools division of

Stirling Bridge. Melvin reports directly to his boss, William Wallace, whom is the president of

the power tools division. The company produces a Braveheart line of power tools which

accounts for 80% of the power-tool division’s profit. During Wallace’s time at Stirling Bridge it

has been seen that due to faulty installation of moving parts such as drill bits and saw blades by

the consumer.

The president of Citizen Alert a consumer interest research group, Edward Longshanks,

called a press conference to announce to the public that the Braveheart line of tools were

considered defective and very dangerous to the public. His decisions were supported in the fact

that Edinburgh University had recently done a study which stated that there were a significantly

higher than normal rate of hand and facial injuries to people whom chose to use the Braveheart

Line of tools.

C. Goodson 2

Wallace understood that the tools could be dangerous due to inaccurate installation of

moving parts so he decided to have the company create a locking mechanism for all moving

parts to help reduce injury. Instructions on how to use this locking mechanism were inserted in

both the instruction booklet which is included with the purchase of every Braveheart tool and

also a separate warning card. The instructions clearly state that the locking mechanism must be

turned until a click is heard and if the instructions are followed then the tool is safe to use.

However, consumers failed to read these instructions about the locking mechanism and without

this knowledge more injuries came as the moving parts on the power tools were less secure as

the consumers were supposed to do the tightening.

Wallace continued to try and get the word out that the Braveheart line of power tools

were safe if used properly however his side was not covered by the media. In turn, Robert

Bruce, the CEO of Stirling Bridge, instructed Wallace to pull all Braveheart tools which used the

locking mechanism off of shelves. While Wallace tries to convince Bruce of the superior quality

of the tools he does not listen, but instead says it does not matter what they think instead it

matters what the consuming public thinks.

In an attempt to try and make the best of the situation Wallace decides to sell the

Braveheart tools with the locking mechanisms overseas due to the fact they did not have to fear

lawsuits. He gave Gibson the job of the overseas selling effort. Gibson is helped by John

Comyn, the Chief Sales Representative of Stirling Bridge, who suggests selling the tools in

Polynesia where the region growth is being hurt by lack of good tools.

C. Goodson 3

Comyn negotiates a deal with Clay More, the president of a hardware retailers

association in Polynesia. Comyn and More discuss amongst each other and decide More will

take more than 90% of the Braveheart line tools. More knows the tools have been recalled from

the shelves and asks about this, and Comyn beats around the question saying how superior

quality the tools are. During their discussion More explains how the tools will be repackaged

and resold and how almost nobody there can read or speak English. Gibson is brought the final

sales contract to sign knowing that this sale could save a lot of money and trouble for the

company; however he also understands that the individuals whom are going to be using these

tools overseas are likely not to read the instructions about the locking mechanism which will

undoubtedly lead to injuries.

A

After looking at the facts, it is important next to ask questions that came from the reading itself.

What does Federal Consumer Products Safety commission say about safety instructions

on power tools?

“Requirements that a consumer product be marked with or accompanied by clear and adequate

warnings or instructions, or requirements respecting the form of warnings or instructions. Any

requirement of such a standard shall be reasonably necessary to prevent or reduce an

unreasonable risk of injury associated with such product,” (Harbor Freight Tools).

What does a Power tool supplier code of conduct say about selling faulty equipment?

C. Goodson 4

“Suppliers are required to disclose conditions that may be in conflict with any Harbor Freight

Tools standards or any applicable regulations or laws in facilities that manufacture, assemble,

inspect, package, store or handle Harbor Freight Tools’ goods. Access must be provided to

Harbor Freight Tools or its designated representatives to conduct an assessment of the facility

manufacturing Harbor Freight Tools’ products. This includes access to the facility, confidential

employee interviews and any documentation necessary to complete a SER assessment and

validate compliance to the Standards. Suppliers must disclose the identity, physical location and

ownership of all factories that will manufacture or come in contact with Harbor Freight Tools

goods, including the use, change or relocation of sub-contractors. Any proposed use of sub-

contractors, change from one factory to another, or relocation must be approved by Harbor

Freight Tools before production begins and only after the subcontractor has entered into a written

commitment with Harbor Freight Tools to comply with this Supplier Code of Conduct Manual,”

(Supplier Code of Conduct).

How many injuries come as a result of power tools in the United States? From

researching I found that, “workshop and indoor power tools for an average of 400,000

emergency room visits a year,” (Baldwin).

L

C. Goodson 5

Melvin Gibson is worried at the end of the reading about the injuries that may come to

those whom do not know the proper safety instructions when using the Braveheart line, and due

to this caring and worrying about others I placed him at Kohlberg/Gilligan Stage 6. He is

showing that he is concerned with abstract relationships along with universal abstract principles

and values. Gibson also is operating under the principle of double effect and this is that his

actions have more than one consequence. In double effect, all known intentions are good

however, unknown intentions could be harmful. In this case Gibson is selling the tools overseas

in an attempt to save money for the company along with help Polynesia’s growth; however these

individuals likely will be injured due to lack of knowledge about locking mechanism. Gibson

also can be seen to demonstrate non-malevolence or avoiding harm to others through actions by

questioning selling the products knowing the harm coming to those lacking the knowledge.

Also, he demonstrates the concepts of both a stakeholder/shareholder; a stakeholder, because he

doesn’t want harm to come to those who purchase the good and are unable to read the safety

instructions and shareholder, because he is concerned about how the company will or will not

benefit from the sale overseas. He also demonstrates more restrictive contractarianism which is

a hypothetical agreement one would make not knowing where they’d be placed in life; this can

be seen because in Rawls veil one would not want to buy a tool that might hurt them. Looking at

how Gibson is considering both sides of the situation, I would say that ultimately he is using

Substantive justice. This is when the end result is focused on and promotes a healthy

community. Gibson understands that by selling these tools while it may help the company it is

likely in the end to hurt a lot of innocent people.

C. Goodson 6

William Wallace can be seen to operate under many different principles, first he

demonstrates Gilligan Stage 6 which is focused on the concern and safety of others as can be

seen through him creating a safer power tool. Non-Malevolence can also be seen as there is an

attempt to avoid injury to others through the action of trying to fix the power tools with the

locking mechanism. He can also be seen to demonstrate Kohlberg Stage 4 which is when an

individual obeys the law to avoid guilt and this can be seen when Wallace decides to sell product

overseas where he will not have to fear a lawsuit. Kohlberg Stage 5 can also be seen here as he

continues to state that the tools meet the federal safety commission standards, this principle

focuses on actions be just and following rules. Wallace also demonstrates the concept of less

restrictive contractarianism, which focuses on obeying agreements and following through by

making sure that as the President the tools he put out for the consumers to buy were classified as

safe by Federal Consumer Product Safety Commission. Also, he can be seen as a shareholder in

the fact that he wants what is best for the company, and he is worried about making profit for the

company even after tools have been shown to be unsafe. Lastly, he is operating on the principle

of procedural justice, as he is focused on continued application of rules, law, and procedures to

meet a goal which is ultimately selling the Braveheart line of tools.

C. Goodson 7

Robert Bruce operates of the concept of egoism, which is an individual worried about

themselves, as the president of the company he does not want people blaming him for the Power

tools malfunctioning. He is also demonstrating Kohlberg Stage 3, he understands good and bad

social norms and in this instance the public approval of whether the product is safe. Also,

Kohlberg stage 4.5 which is the stage when individuals understand consequences and he

understands that bad public relations are not what is best for the company. He can also be seen

demonstrating Gilligan Stage 5, in the fact that he wants to show the public that Stirling Bridge is

indeed concerned with the relationship it has with the consumer. He operates on the principle of

rule utilitarianism as well which focuses on the past and rules and rulings, he does this when

pulling the power tools due to the previous Audi cases which saw their sales drop 60% due to

lack of accountability. He can be seen to be following procedural justice as he wants the

products taken off the shelf to ultimately meet the goal of a good self-image along with a good

image for the company as a whole.

C. Goodson 8

Edward Longshanks can be seen to demonstrate Kohlberg/Gilligan Stage 6 because he is

concerned with the well-being of others. He is worried about how the unsafety of products made

by Stirling Bridge put the consumers whom buy this product in serious danger. He can also be

seen to demonstrate non-malevolence in the fact that he his actions are to lead to less injuries.

Also, can be seen operating under the principle of Act utilitarianism in the sense he is trying to

create the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people by in a sense boycotting the

dangerous tools which are being sold. By boycotting is he ultimately saving a lot of people

injury within the United States however this is when double effect can be seen as well as he has

good intent with his actions by trying to protect the U.S consumer. However, in return unaware

to him this will lead to many people overseas using this tool and the likelihood of injuries are

much higher due to lack of ability for Stirling Bridge to explain how to properly use locking

mechanism. He is using substantive justice due to the fact he is worried about the outcome and

promoting a healthy community by taking these tools off the shelves.

John Ballio is the lawyer whom brings about the 300 million dollar lawsuit against

Stirling Bridge. He is operating on the principle of less restrictive contractarianism in the sense

that he has the contract/duty as a lawyer to fight for his clients in this case whom have been

injured by the Braveheart line of tools. Also, he can be seen demonstrating retributive justice

which states that individuals should be repaid for any wrong doing done against them and the

individual doing the wrong doing should be punished. He wants to see the company pay for the

injuries which they have caused to the consumer due to putting unsafe tools on the shelves along

with those whom were injured being reimbursed for their injuries.

C. Goodson 9

John Comyn the Stirling Bridge Sales Representative whom negotiates the deal to send

the tools overseas can be seen operating on Kohlberg 4.5 as he is worried about the company as a

whole so he focuses on selling the unsafe tools in a sense to help save the company. Also, less

restrictive contractarianism as he is doing his following his job description by bringing up

possible sales opportunities in a good location to make a profit.

Clay More the president of a hardware retailers association in Polynesia can be seen to

be operating on Kohlberg 5, as he is trying to help sustain growth throughout Polynesia which is

being slowed due to a lack of the necessary tools to keep up with the growth seen throughout the

region.

U

Looking next at the ethical conflicts I will look at individuals separately and their values

and principles and identify where conflicts occur. First, it is important to look at the stakeholders

of Stirling Bridge (Melvin Gibson, William Wallace, Robert Bruce, and John Comyn). All of

these individuals are stakeholders in the company, however all of them hold different levels of

power which can lead to conflict. Wallace, Bruce, and Comyn all can be seen to fall somewhere

between Kohlberg stages 3 and 5. This is due to the fact that these individuals are more focused

on what the law says is safe, avoiding censure, and obtaining approval in the consumer’s eyes.

Also, all three of these individuals also follow procedural justice in the fact that they are focused

on continued application of rules, law, and procedures to meet a goal which is to ultimately make

money off the Braveheart line whether it be in the U.S. or overseas. The conflict comes into play

in the fact that Gibson himself falls under Kohlberg/Gilligan Stage 6 in that he shows care in

abstract relationships with others along with a conscience knowing that the tools he sells will

C. Goodson 10

likely be misused due to lack of education on how to properly use the tools. This puts Gibson in

a tough place, because if he rebukes and tells it would be whistleblowing.

Wallace creates an internal conflict in himself by demonstrating Gilligan Stage 6 along

with Kohlberg stage 4. He shows that he is worried about abstract relationships with others due

to the fact that he implements a separate locking mechanism on the Braveheart line of tools to try

and prevent injury to the consumers. However, he reverts back to Kohlberg stage 4 when he

decides to sell the tools overseas where he knows he will not have to fear lawsuit and he can

make some money for the company. On one hand he shows that he does care about the

consumer, however on the other he shows that he is more worried about hiding behind the law

and selling the tools knowing individuals are likely to be injured.

Edward Longshanks also encounters an internal ethical conflict due to the principle of

double effect. While the intention might be good, there is an intention which he overlooks. On

the one hand he is doing his best to get these tools off of the shelves because he does not want

the consumer to be injured. However, on the other hand since the tools are being sold overseas

due to his actions individuals will continue to be injured by the tool, however due to even lower

chances of the individuals overseas reading the operation manual for the tools. This also

conflicts him in terms of act utilitarianism in the sense that he is attempting to create the greatest

amount of good for the most people through his actions, however in actuality he is leading to

more injuries to individuals with less medical help. So ultimately whether he understands it or

not he is hurting the consumer as a whole because he is leading to a whole different consumer

being exploited.

Lastly, both Comyn and More both experience ethical conflicts in the sense that both

individuals are trying to do what they believe to be the best choice and what their job description

C. Goodson 11

asks of them. Starting with Comyn whom can be seen to be operating at Kohlberg 4.5 due to the

fact he is concerned with the company as a whole which means selling the faulty tools so that

they do not lose money from all of these unusable tools. As the chief sales representative he

would be going against less restrictive contractarianism as it is his job to bring sales to the

company. Next, looking at More he falls under Kohlberg Stage 5 as he is trying to help provide

the necessary tools to keep up with the growth throughout Polynesia. Once again, less restrictive

contractarianism would be broken as it is his job as a hardware retailer to provide the consumer

with tools from which they can choose to complete whatever job is ahead of them. In both cases

the individuals can be seen to be in an ethical conflict from the beginning as they were forced to

choose between doing their job or doing what is right.

E 1

Melvin Gibson decides to not make the overseas sale even though he has been instructed too.

S 1

For the first decision Gibson would be operating under the principle of utility, which states

when given two choices choose the best outcome for the most people. While Melvin will likely

lose his job due to this decision when looking at his other option which is to sell knowing tools

will cause injury he chose the option which benefited the greatest number of people, which leads

into act utilitarianism which is demonstrated when he decides to act accordingly to what is best

for the greatest number of people. By not selling the tool overseas he is hurting Stirling Bridge

financially as a company which will likely lead to job losses, etc. However, by not selling tools

he is saving many innocent people overseas from being injured by their tools. This leads into the

principle of integrity which can be seen by Gibson not performing the sale due to knowing the

C. Goodson 12

harm that it may cause to the consumers. His overall intention is not making the sale and his

motive is that he is not concerned with money, but instead puts consumer safety number one.

Continuing to look at the support this decision would uphold my decision to place Gibson

at Gilligan Stage 6 along with benevolence which is the promotion of well-being of others. He is

focusing on abstract relationships and as a producer of goods he decides not to sell the tool

overseas knowing likelihood of injury. By deciding to take this course of action Gibson avoids

the principle of egoism or looking out for one’s self-interest. It would have been easy for him to

just blindly follow the company and agree with the sale which would have likely led to a moving

up in terms of job opportunity. It would have been impossible for him to follow act

utilitarianism along with egoism simultaneously so by not choosing egoism he shows that he

cares for consumer.

Another principle which supports this decision is more restrictive contractarianism due to

the fact that in the veil one would not want to buy a tool that could cause injury to themselves.

By not selling the tools then this eliminates the possibility of individuals buying the faulty tools

and facing injury from them. Also, he is supported by the stakeholder principle due to the fact

that he is insuring the safety of these consumers by not selling them a dangerous product. Lastly,

by choosing this he is following substantive justice which ultimately focuses on the end result

and the end result here would be the best decision for the consumer as they do not have to fear

possible harm from tools. Also, duty ethics in the sense that you do what is morally right

because it is your duty and not selling inadequate tools is morally correct.

C 1

When looking at the criticisms for this decision Gibson would be going against his

Fiduciary Duty or in other words is a relationship between an organization or individual in which

C. Goodson 13

they act solely in the other party’s interest. By not selling the tools to the overseas company he

is going to hurt the business relationship which Stirling Bridge has begun to build. This in return

would lead to financial and relationship losses for the company. This leads to the double effect

of the situation which Gibson is put in, while his actions might be positive he has no way of

knowing the separate actions which will come due to his decision not to sell. While he will not

be putting the consumer in harm’s way he will possibly lose his job along with allowing

Polynesia to still lack the necessary tools which it needs to sustain growth.

Another criticism would come due to the fact that he is going against Kohlberg 4.5,

because by not selling the tools he did not make the overall best decision for the company so in

return this will lead to financial loss. Also, this leads into less restrictive contractarianism as it is

technically his job to do whatever he is informed to do by those above him. By not following

Wallace’s orders to sell the tools he is going against his contract as a professional and this can

ultimately lead to a loss of job. Lastly, in terms of the principle of shareholders the company

will now face a loss. This loss will in return cause likely loss of jobs and an increase in other

tools that company sells. This leads to the last criticism which focuses on act utilitarianism,

while he is choosing the morally right action by not selling, he possibly could not be producing

the greatest amount of good for the most people. By not selling tools individuals overseas will

not be able to build, even though tools are likely to cause injury they can still be used to help

maintain the growth that is being seen. Also, by not selling tools this would as I have said be a

large financial loss for the company which could result in a lot of people losing their jobs along

with rises in the prices of Stirling Bridge items still sold. Through this decision Gibson is

showing he has the courage to make the hard decision.

E 2

C. Goodson 14

Melvin Gibson can continue with the sale of the power tools to the overseas company.

S 2

The intention here is for Melvin to continue with the sale of the power tools knowing the

danger that they pose, his motive is to make a profit for the company, and the circumstances are

the company will be losing money for two years at least. The first support comes in terms of

Kohlberg Stage 5 as Gibson is following the rules set forth in his contract by following the boss

orders and technically the tools do meet all safety regulations set forth for them. This leads into

less restrictive contractarianism as it is his job as the vice president of the company to try and

make a profit for the company. By selling the tools overseas Gibson is helping his company to

avoid possible lawsuits along with helping them make back a lot of the money that they would

have lost due to the pulling of Braveheart tools from shelves.

This decision could also be supported by act utilitarianism along with rule utilitarianism.

First looking at act utilitarianism both Stirling Bridge and the overseas region see benefit as the

company will make a profit and the country will receive the tools necessary to help them sustain

the growth of their country. Rule utilitarianism can be seen as the company has had overseas

relations in the past and have sold overseas before so he would be following actions from the

past which positively helped the company.

C 2

When looking at the criticisms it is important to see that this decision is not good or

permissible due to the fact it does not hold up when measuring it against the principle of respect.

The principle of respect states that individuals should not be used as means to an end. In other

words you cannot use individuals just to achieve a certain goal or aspiration. Human beings can

C. Goodson 15

be used as an end however not as the means to reaching that end. Looking back at this choice by

selling the tools Gibson would be using the individuals in Polynesia as a mean to meet the

ultimate end goal of saving the money a lot of company. This ties in with Kohlberg Stage 6

because by using the people as a means this shows that Gibson is not worried about the abstract

relationships, but instead is more worried about making money so in return he is willing to sell

the unsafe tools.

Also, this decision does not hold up in terms of universalizing the maxim, which is when

an individual follows the maxim which leads it to become a moral law. By looking at the four

steps involved with universalizing a maxim; determine motives for action, use motives to give

reason for action, restate action so as it can be reformed to all people, and look at the action and

see if it is consistent enough to be a moral law. It is messed up from the start as the motive is not

based on respect so in return this moral law all of selling bad tools cannot be universalized.

Gibson would also be contradicting Gilligan Stage 6 and non-malevolence due to the fact

that they are selling tools to the consumer knowing that they are unsafe and likely to cause injury

to those who do not read the safety precautions. Going off of this by selling unsafe tools just so

the company can make a profit he would be following strict obedience which is the belief that

you must follow the rules which in this case would be listening to your boss and making money,

however by selling unsafe tools he is not showing principle of integrity. Lastly, he would not be

following Substantive justice which focuses on the end result and a healthy community as he

would not be doing what is best for those individuals in Polynesia.

E 3

C. Goodson 16

Melvin Gibson fixes the recalled tools with the locking mechanism to make them completely

safe along with putting safety instructions on side of power tools and then sell overseas and in

the U.S.

S 3

This decision is supported first by the concept of Act Utilitarianism due to the fact that

through this option everyone will be coming out on top. The company will have to spend

money, but ultimately this is the best decision for them due to the fact that this would make them

a lot of money selling in two locations along with helping their PR. This would also be in the

best interest not only of the overseas consumer, but all consumers. Individuals in Polynesia

would have the tools necessary to build and they would be safe, and consumers in the U.S. would

no longer have to fear the injuries which they associated with the Braveheart line.

Also, this decision would fall under Kohlberg/Gilligan Stage 6 as he is focused on the not

only about the safety of the consumer but also how to help the company. They are going above

looking at just the profit, but instead focus on making sure the product is safe and user friendly.

This ties into integrity as they as a company do not want to sell a faulty tool line so they fix the

problem. The intention is to fix the tool, the motive is to make tool safe, and the circumstances

are when the company is about to make the wrong choice and sell unsafe tools. Through this

decision Gibson would also be showing his moral values which are necessary for an individual to

be a morally good person. By choosing this course of action he is showing the four

characteristics of a morally good person which are; honesty, fairness, kindness, and courtesy.

This decision also is supported in the fact that by making this change and adding the

instructions to the side of all tools this meets the Federal Consumer Product Safety commissions

C. Goodson 17

guidelines which state, “consumer product be marked with or accompanied by clear and

adequate warnings or instructions, or requirements respecting the form of warnings or

instructions,” (Harbor Freight Tools). Lastly, it would be following the principle of substantive

justice because it is the best decision for both sides as the company can improve its PR while

making a profit and the consumer will be using a safe tool.

C 3

Looking at the criticisms it is clear that by fixing the tools and including instructions on

the side that Gibson is going above his pay grade and against his contract which goes against less

restrictive contractarianism. He was informed to sell the tools, not fix them, by fixing them he is

going against contract which could cause him to lose job. Going along with this looking at the

shareholder principle by fixing products he is spending money which in return will lead to a

decrease in profits at first which goes against his job of making sure the company sees a profit.

Continuing to build off of these things another criticism comes in the form of procedural

justice. He is going against the application of rules, law, and procedures to meet a goal, which

were outlined to him by Wallace. His job was just to sell the tool overseas and that be it,

however he went against his instructions and fix the tool. Gibson is seen in a real life David vs

Goliath as he stands against those higher up in command against the odds to produce a safe tool.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the best choice of action would be for Melvin Gibson to fix the recalled

tools with the locking mechanism to make them completely safe along with putting safety

instructions on side of power tools and then sell overseas and the U.S. This is the best decision

due to the fact that ultimately it is a decision which will benefit both sides, the producer and the

consumer. The producer and consumer in a sense work together to help create the best possible

C. Goodson 18

outcome for both sides; the consumer by bringing to view the problem with the Braveheart line,

and the producer by not focusing solely on money but instead producing the best possible

product.

First, looking at the S’s in E3 while act utilitarianism was used as support for many this

decision best follows what this truly means. Act utilitarianism focuses on performing the action

the produces the best outcome for the most people. In both of the other E’s either the consumer

or the producer were going to be losing which leads to a positive outcome for less people.

However, with this decision both the company and consumer are going to have positive

outcomes. Also, this decision falls under Kohlberg/Gilligan stage 6 for Gibson as he would not

only be focusing on the relationships with the overseas consumer whom are buying the tools, but

also the overall relationship of the company with all consumers by producing a safe tool. This

decision also follows the Federal Consumer product Safety commission’s guidelines by placing

instructions on the tool itself. Lastly, in terms of substantive justice it is the best decision for

both sides as the company can improve its PR while making a profit and the consumer will be

using a safe tool.

Next, when looking at the C’s this outcome did not have many as it worked out well for

both sides. While the others have something as vital as act utilitarianism within their C’s as

stated due to one side not benefiting this decisions biggest criticism is the fact that Gibson goes

against less restrictive contractarianism due to the fact he goes against his job contract and fixes

the tools even though he is not told. This also leads to him going against procedural justice due

to the fact he does not follow the rules or procedures to ultimately sell tools. This case shows a

common thing that individuals are likely to face in a real life job situation. What do you do

when the boss tells you to do something and you know it is wrong? You sit down and you write

C. Goodson 19

out your VALUES and you decide ultimately what decision is the best by looking at the supports

and criticisms for each decision.

C. Goodson 20

Works Cited

Baldwin, William.(2009). The Most Dangerous Power Tools. Web. 4 December 2015.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/21/most-dangerous-tools-business-healthcare-tools.html

Beauchamp, Tom L. Case Studies in Business, Society, and Ethics, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River,

New Jersey, 2004. Print.

Harbor Freight Tools.(2011) Supplier Code of Conduct Manual. Web. 4 December 2015.

http://www.harborfreight.com/Manual.pdf