However this integral role is questionable because the firm decided to confine the sale of the product to industrial firms who buy in bulk therefore excluding the small businesses. This is a blatant contradiction to their story of developing small businesses in the economy.
The underlying ethical concern in the case is that of corporate responsibility. There are however several specific ethical issues, these include:.
v Infringing on individuals and society's right to a safe product.
v Pulling the product for personal gain as opposed to the benefit of society and consumers as was stated by H. B. Fuller.
v H. B. Fuller's attempt to extricate them selves from any responsibility in the crisis by laying blame on the Parent Company without any mitigating circumstances.
In order to decide whether HB Fuller was responsible morally for the addiction of the street children to the Resistol product let us examine the actions of the company. .
The firm did:.
v Urged government to prohibit the sale of the product to children.
v Discontinued the sale of the product in small jars.
v Paid for the support of several social workers to work with street children.
v Circulated information to distributors about the dangers of Resistol addiction.
v After stating they were to remove the brand from the market the parent company decided to confined the sale of the product to large industrial firms.
v Changed the chemical formula of the glue to less pungent formula however lethal just the same to deter abuse.
v Increased the price of the glue by 30%.
v stated they were not responsible for the catastrophic effects of the Resistol brand on the children of the Central American Countries.
Let us apply some tests to these actions:.
1. The Law Test: H.B. Fuller did not commit any illegal act in their approach to the situation. Their control measures, which included, rendering assistance to the social workers and reducing availability of the product were well within the confines of the law.