Deakin University ALR276: An Ethical Analysis of James Hardie

This essay examines the James Hardie scandal through the lens of ethical decision-making, evaluating the company's actions using utilitarianism, deontological theory, and virtue ethics. It highlights how James Hardie's pursuit of profits at the expense of public health, particularly concerning asbestos-related diseases, constitutes a significant ethical failure. The analysis demonstrates that the company's behavior was unethical not only towards society but also detrimental to its long-term interests, ultimately leading to legal repercussions for key individuals involved. The essay concludes that the James Hardie case serves as a cautionary example of the consequences of unethical corporate conduct, reinforcing the importance of ethical considerations in business decisions. Desklib provides access to similar essays and study resources for students.

ESSAY 2
Ethics are the moral values and principles through which the behaviour or the conduct of an
individual towards an activity is governed. It is a moral philosophy which covers the
systematizing, recommending and even defending the right and wrong conduct (Corrigan and
Farrell 2010). They help in decision making and the aim of such decision making is towards the
right choice selection. This right choice requires identification and prioritization of
responsibilities to the person themselves, their profession and even the wider community. In the
following parts, this very concept has been highlighted in context of James Hardie scandal and
the activities undertaken by it.
As stated in the introductory segment, the decision making under ethics require the emphasis to
be placed on the person themself, the profession they belong to and the community in general.
This is because these are deemed as the stakeholders who are impact or have the capacity of
being impacted as a result of the conduct undertaken by the person. This requires a care to be
taken in making decisions in such a manner which neither put a negative impact on themselves,
nor on the different stakeholders (Ferrell, Fraedrich and Ferrell 2016). The same is particularly
important in not putting a negative impact, if the positive impact cannot be attained on the
different stakeholder groups, which is the key requirement as per the leading ethical theories. A
leading ethical theory which assists in ethical decision making is that of utilitarianism. As per
this theory, such decisions are deemed as ethical where the utility is maximized (Bykvist 2010).
In other words, where the happiness is maximized from undertaking a particular action, such an
action is deemed ethical. Thus, the consequence of an action can decide if an action is right or
wrong (Mill 2017).
Deontological theory can also be used for the purpose of undertaking ethical decision making
and had been given by Immanuel Kant. This theory is provides that the morality of an action is
(NAME, STUDENT NUMBER)

ESSAY 3
the deciding factor on an ethical being moral or immoral (Naaman-Zauderer 2010). It refers to
the obligation or rule based on ethics and focuses on the actions instead of end results (Mizzoni
2009). The third key ethical theory is virtue ethics in which the focus is placed on mind and
character (Hursthouse and Pettigrove 2016). This theory presents that an action would be right
where the same is undertaken by a virtuous person, on the basis of “virtues” of honesty, integrity,
justice and fairness. Thus, instead of rules, duties or consequences, the moral character decides
the act to be ethical or not (Winter 2011).
The ethical theories and their interplay with the real world can be better explained with the
example of Jamie Hardie, in context of ethical decision making. James Hardie scandal involved
the economic exploitation of resources of the society, resulted in serious negative impact on the
community. In Australia, James Hardie had evolved as the largest building manufacturer of
asbestos based products when it was well known to cause major fatal diseases. James Hardie is
deemed as a highly unethical blunder across the glove due to the continued mining and
manufacturing products by the company when they knew the dangers of asbestos. The situation
was further worsened when the company decided to ignore the claims of the asbestos victims and
made an attempt to avoid their liability and responsibility on the issue by undertaking different
corporate restructuring actions. The production of asbestos was an unethical decision as the same
was undertaken for attaining commercial profits whilst the health and lives of the wider
community was jeopardized. Even when the company realized the dangers back in 1964, they
did not take any action to stop or even curtail the ill effects of this menace (Plessis, Hargovan,
and Bagaric 2010).
This decision was not only unethical for the society at large, but also towards the company itself.
This can be established through the application of different ethical theories discussed early on.
(NAME, STUDENT NUMBER)

ESSAY 4
Where utilitarianism is applied to the present perspective, the actions of James Hardie were
unethical as they did not focus on maximizing the happiness, as the society was put at a danger
of different diseases associated to asbestos, just for earning profits. This ultimately led to the end
of James Hardie and the number of its key members, including directors of the company, being
held liable. The utility was neither maximized towards the profession, nor towards the company
itself, let along the society. So, the consequences of their actions made the company unethical.
Where deontological theory is applied in context of James Hardie Company, the actions of the
company are to be analysed. James Hardie continued with the production of asbestos for a long
period of time, even when it knew the ill effects of the same. This continuation would be deemed
as unethical as the actions of the company were motivated by greed. The company even made
attempts at avoiding their liability by indulging in corporate restructuring which again is a proof
of the company being unethical. As this corporate restructuring is something which ultimately
got the company under the lens of ASIC, the actions of the company were unethical even for
them. Also, the focus of the company was not towards earning profits for the stakeholders, but to
benefit a few persons, which again was an unethical thing. Lastly, when the theory of virtue
ethics is applied, the actions of the company were neither honest, nor fair and were far away
from virtues of justice or integrity, making the actions of the company unethical.
To conclude, the case of James Hardie continues to be an example of unethical behaviour not
just in Australia but world-wide. No matter which ethical theory is applied, the actions of the
company cannot be deemed as ethical. Also, such unethical decision making not only harmed the
society in terms of asbestos victims but also the company as the key people running the company
and indulging in such unethical acts were held liable under the law.
(NAME, STUDENT NUMBER)

ESSAY 5
References
Bykvist, K 2010, Utilitarianism: A Guide for the Perplexed, Bloomsbury Academic, London.
Corrigan, RH & Farrell, ME 2010, Ethics: A University Guide, Progressive Frontiers press,
Gloucester.
Ferrell, OC, Fraedrich, J & Ferrell, L 2016, Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making & Cases,
11th edn, Cengage Learning, Boston, MA.
Hursthouse, R & Pettigrove, G 2016, Virtue Ethics, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.
retrieved 01 December 2017, <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/#FormVirtEthi>
Mill, JS 2017, Utilitarianism, Coventry House Publishing, Dublin, OH.
Mizzoni, J 2009, Ethics: The Basics, John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex.
Naaman-Zauderer, N 2010, Descartes' Deontological Turn: Reason, Will, and Virtue in the Later
Writings, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Plessis, JJD, Hargovan, A & Bagaric, M 2010, Principles of Contemporary Corporate
Governance, 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Winter, M 2011, Rethinking Virtue Ethics, Springer, New York.
(NAME, STUDENT NUMBER)