Ch6
Case Study # 1: Toyota Motor Corporation and Employee “Suggestion” System
1. What elements of the principle of subsidiarity do you see or not see in the differences
between the GM and Toyota systems?
The elements of the principle of subsidiarity I see in the difference between the GM and Toyota
systems is that Toyota’s system displays the principle of subsidiarity that is not present in the
GM system. US employees who went to Japan for two weeks examined the power of subsidiarity
and how employees are treated as equals to raise the human dignity in the workplace. Thinking
that 96% of the suggestions of the employees are implements shows that Toyota really values
their employees and think of them as experts in what they do.
2. In the context of this case, how is the human dignity related to the principle of
subsidiarity?
The human dignity is related to the principle of subsidiarity in a way that Toyota’s application of
subsidiarity created an environment in the company in which the employees at the bottom are
respected as well as those who are highly ranked. They are very eager to give suggestions to
contribute to the company because they know that the company really listens to their suggestions
and implements them. In this way, the employees felt that they play an important part of the
system of Toyota and as a result valued the company and work to make it a successful one.
3. In the context, of this case, how does the implementation of systems consistent with the
principle of subsidiarity relate to productivity and profitability?
When employees make decisions for the company, the quality becomes better and there are
fewer issues in the company since everyone help to solve the problem and contribute to the
company’s success. With better quality and less issues in the production, the company increases
its productivity and profitability. Toyota had the biggest revenue in car sales compared to its
competitors. By building quality cars in large volume, they are able to create quality cars that are
cheaper than most of their competitors and cars that consumers can trust to last for a long time.
Also, the treatment and respect the employees receive helped the company to win their
employees’ loyalty and trust, which resulted in better work for the company.
4. Are there other principles from CST that can be applied to this case?
Other principles of CST that can be applied to this case include solidarity and good stewardship.
They employees and managers work together which shows that they have one purpose and that
they are working all together toward achieving that purpose. That shows their solidarity. Good
stewardship is also applicable in the case, as Toyota becomes good steward when they focus on
quality first and not quantity. In that way, they are taking care of the safety of their vehicles and
make sure that the lives of the consumers are safe. They also take good care of their employees
and innovate their products so they will not cause much harm in the environment.
Case #2: Homeboy Industries
1. What elements of the principle of subsidiarity do you see present in Fr. Greg’s approach
to gang issues in his parish neighborhood?
What is good about Fr. Greg’s approach is that he did not look at the gang members as problems
in the society but he looked at them at poor people who need help and who need jobs. He
understands that these people sometimes have no chances but to join in gangs and be part of
crimes in order for them to survive. When he helped in creating jobs for the gang members and
helped in creating Homeboy Industries, he helped the poor people to have decent jobs.
2. How is the principle of subsidiarity evident in the exchange with the Hollywood director
who wants to help?
The principle of subsidiarity is evident when Fr. Greg did not accept the Hollywood director’s
suggestions. In the end, the Hollywood director asked Fr. Greg for suggestions on how he can
help the gangsters have better lives. Involving Fr. Greg in the decision to the gangsters applies
the principle of subsidiarity.
3. How is the principle of subsidiarity evident in Fr. Greg’s approach to spreading the
Homeboy Industries’ model to other communities?
When Fr. Greg wanted to spread the model of Homeboy Industries to other communities, he was
applying the principle of subsidiarity in which to let the people at the bottom decide for
themselves and participate in making the community better. Also, this is one way that Fr. Greg
shows his contribution to the society and proves that people at the bottom of the social class
ladder can join together to make the lives of the gangsters or the poor better.
4. Fr. Greg claims that the primary, but not only, need of gang members was employment.
How does this align with the principles of CST?
This aligns to the principle human dignity because people need employment for them to live and
have human dignity. When people start to lose their jobs, lose money, lose homes, then their
human dignity goes down. When people are employed and they can provide for themselves, their
human dignity goes up. This is also shows the principle of the common good as helping the
gangsters also benefit the common good because there will be less crimes in the street.
Chapter 5 Case Study #1
principle of equal liberty
Day Laboring:
1. Given that justice can be known from the experience of injustice, what does the
experience of the Mexican immigrants in Farmingville say about justice?
Given that justice can be known from the experience of injustice, the experience of the Mexican
immigrants in Farmingville would say that justice is hard to be achieved for you when you are an
immigrant looking for a decent life and a decent job. It was not fair that Mexican immigrants
receive lower pay than those of the citizens. Mexican immigrants are doing the same hard work
for a very small pay, which can be considered an injustice, knowing that the citizens will receive
higher salaries for the same jobs.
For the immigrants, as their salaries are hardly enough for them to use on rents, they live in big
numbers in units that don’t permit such numbers of residents. This is because they don’t receive
the salaries the other receive.
2. Justice is something that continues to take root and flourish. In this case, though,
polarization seems to have preempted solidarity, or has it? Why or why not?
Yes, in this case polarization preempted solidarity because these Mexican immigrants were
treated differently. They were treated like an unliked minority. They did not feel accepted by the
community they were exhibiting. The Mexicans risked their lives just to work for a decent life
and make a living as they have families but they were not accepted by the community.
3. Sacred scripture reveals a God who has a special love for the “lost, last, and the least.”
How do the Mexicans compared with the anawim that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures
referred to as highly favored by God?
Mexicans are compared with the anawim because they are also poor and the community looks
them down. Based on that the scripture reveals, they are highly favored by God because they are
facing injustices from the majority of the people in the society.
4. What are the risks that undocumented immigrants take by staying in Farmingville and
not applying for citizenship?
The risks that undocumented immigrants take by staying in Farmingville and not applying for
citizenship are many. First, they might be deported as soon as they are known about. They might
be viewed as dangerous and harmful by the community. They may also find difficulty when
looking for jobs because employers don't want to hire illegal immigrants. Even if they found
jobs, they might be paid less than the minimum wages.
5. The United States is a land of immigrants. Why do some in the United States proudly
acknowledge this and yet not accept immigrants in their neighborhoods?
The majority of the people living in the United States can be considered immigrants. Some in the
United States do proudly acknowledge this yet not accept immigrants in their neighborhoods
because they are lacking empathy and solidarity. After they figured their way out in the U.S and
settled for a decent life they became intolerant for the new poor coming from other countries.
They don’t view themselves as immigrants anymore and they are blind to see how this country is
open for all and for everyone. They just repeat what makes them feel better about themselves but
at the same time they don’t welcome those people. They view themselves as insiders while they
view immigrants as outsiders.
6. Consider this case on immigration as the “see” in the see-the-judge-act methodology CST
uses to assess unjust political, social, and economic situations. What principles would you
consider as helpful as an evaluative lens to judge this situation? What kind of action would
you propose given what you see and judge?
The principle of equal liberty is a good way to judge the situation of immigrants from Mexico.
Seeing that these immigrants experience unequal treatment, very low salary, poor working
conditions, and even poor standard of living, people should act according to the principle of
liberty. By doing this, people will begin to realize that the immigrants are also people like them
and they are free to live wherever they want to live and they should not be segregated from the
society. The principle of equal liberty will also tell to the business owners that immigrants should
have fair treatment and have a livable salary in which they can have a good shelter and buy all
the things they need to buy from their salary so that they can live well. The action should be
more laws for anti-discrimination of immigrants and programs to help immigrants have more
education and skills since they will contribute in the workforce and the economy can also benefit
from them.
Chapter 5 Case Study #2
Sweet Justice or Sour Dough?
1. Some financial analysts have suggested that the privately held Hostess Brands, Inc. is a
brilliant example of vulture capitalism perpetuated by Wall Street hedge fund managers.
Lots of money was made, particularly in the end. Does an understanding of justice
informed by CST support amassing of such wealth. Why or why not?
The understanding of justice informed by CST does not support amassing of such wealth. First of
all, this resulted to the employees at the bottom having very low salaries and not so good
working conditions that is why they created unions. While the employees are laid off and there
are cuts in salaries, the CEOs and other top executives are enjoying increased pay and benefit.
This is not a sweet justice according to CST because only those at the top benefited from it. The
majority of the workers worked long hours for the company and they are so many but they are
only working so the top executives can enjoy high pay and huge benefits and the people at the
bottom suffer.
2. Who is to blame for the demise of Hostess? Explain whether you believe management or
unions are more responsible for the shuttering of Hostess.
To me, management is to blame for what happened. First of all, the company is already old and it
lasted for a long time which could mean that they might still be using the old equipment from
before and not advancing their technology. This could be a problem because they do not want to
spend more on equipment and technology and that means they are not being innovative. They are
also mismanaging the funds and not using the funds wisely for the company to be fair to
everyone. The unions are just responding to the situation and if there are treated well, there is no
need for a union.
3. Does union leadership have any sort of fiduciary responsibility toward fired Hostess
workers? Why or why not?
Yes, they have responsibility for these workers because the unions were created for the workers
so they will have fair treatment in the industry. The leaders are expected to do their best to care
for their members and give any help they can to make sure that the workers are treated well.
There were other ways that they could show their disappointments without hurting the company
because when they strike and do not work, the company will not have profit and all of them will
lose.
4. Could union leadership have used other means to avoid losing this worksite?
Union leadership can actually use other means to avoid losing the worksite. They can talk
properly with the management and show their concerns and also show the steps they will do if
the management will not do any action. They have to understand each other and try to make the
decision favor both of them. If the decision will only favor one, it will not be good because the
relationship will not be good and mutual.
5. Do you believe that Apollo Global Management and Metropoulos & Company made the
decision to hire only nonunion workers too quickly? Why or why not?
Yes, it was too quick. They should investigate first why there are unions. If the management will
manage the company well and the workers will be treated well, these union workers will support
the company more. These union workers only look for justice and they join themselves together
to help each other reach justice.
6. Consider this case on unions as the “see” in the see-judge-act methodology CST uses to
assess political, social, and economic situations. What principles would you consider as
helpful as an evaluative lens to judge this situation? What kind of action would you
propose give what you see and judge?
The kind of action I would propose is that justice demands a just wage. The workers are people
and they have families just like the CEOs. They have to support their families and earn for their
families. That is why a just wage is needed. It is not just that a company will not give appropriate
wages to workers just because it has spent majority of its money paying to the CEO and top
executives. It is not fair to decrease the salary of the workers while increasing the salary of the
CEO three times. Some CEOs even volunteer to cut their wages just so the workers will have
higher take home pay. The action here should be a just wage for everyone and the CEO in all
American companies should be just and think about the employees and not just themselves.
There should be a rule that CEOs cannot earn more than 20 times of average employee or
something like that.
Ch8
Case Study #1: No Hershey’s Kisses for Children of Africa
1. Why is it difficult to enforce good corporate behavior in multinational corporations such
as Hershey, which depends on a variety of suppliers that are often located in developing
areas of the world?
Good corporate behavior is hard to enforce when the corporations think about their profit first
rather than people. When they think about profit and staying in business, they will not care
anymore how these suppliers supply them with the products or materials they need. Aside from
that, with its many suppliers, it is hard to track at times all these suppliers and if they are
following the international standards of human labor and whether they violate human rights or
not. Moreover, the developing areas of the world do not have so much considerations on the
human rights because they are thinking about their survival. For example, Ghana is so poor and
they think that having less than $1 dollar a day for 12 hours of work will be better than not
having any amount at all. Perhaps when the job from Hershey is not there, they will have nothing
at all. Their situation is being exploited and they still consider they are in a better situation.
2. Can Hershey be held responsible for the labor practices of its suppliers? To what extent
is Hershey being pressured to oversee and regulate the operations of foreign suppliers in
ways that mimic that actions that a government ought to take?
Yes, Hershey can be held responsible for them. However, the responsibility is not all from them.
When the demand is so high that responsible suppliers cannot keep up anymore, Hershey has no
choice but to look for additional suppliers even when their standards are lower than what they
expect. Since the supply is driven by the demand, Hershey can only do its best to make sure that
the supply meets the demand because it is their business. I think Hershey is being pressured too
much because governments have labor laws and they should be the one ensuring that the
businesses are following the law in their countries.
3. When people purchase Hershey’s products, patronize its amusement park, see a doctor
at the Hershey Hospital, or support the company’s foundation, are they cooperating in
human rights abuses?
It depends. When people are not aware yet of what is happening and they do not know that
Hershey is responsible for human rights abuses of its suppliers to their laborers in Africa, then
they are not cooperating in human rights abuses. However, when these consumers already know
what is happening and they are not doing about it and they still support the company by buying
their products, then it means that they are cooperating in human rights abuses in indirect manner.
4. What kind of ethical responsibility, if any, does Hershey have to Ghana should it no
longer need its cocoa?
Hershey profited a lot from the low labor cost in Ghana and also from the land and workers
there. In the law of the country, Hershey might not have responsibility anymore when it no
longer need the cocoa in Ghana but in the view of human rights and corporate responsibility,
Hershey should help in giving back to Ghana because Ghana helped its business so the company
should give back by supporting more businesses in Ghana that offers the people fair pay and fair
labor laws. Hershey can also create projects that will help the community in Ghana leave better
lives and improve their skills so they can have other source of income aside from planting and
harvesting cocoa.
Case Study #2: The Bitter Internal Drive of Apple
1. Foxconn has raised questions about continuing to act as a supplier for Apple,
investigating options with other high-tech firms. Foxconn has indicated that it has taken
too much of the blame for the human rights abuses that should have been shared with
Apple. What degree of the responsibility does Apple have in this case?
Both companies are responsible. Foxconn is a supplier. When it agreed to have a contract with
Apple, it already knew the number of the demands of Apple and it should know whether it has
the capacity to deliver or not. When it knew that it would sacrifice the working conditions of its
employers just to meet the demands of Apple, it should have been transparent with Apple so
Apple can get another or additional supplier. Foxconn is a different company and has a different
management. The blame will only come to Apple when after knowing the harsh conditions of the
employees at Foxconn does not do anything to save the employees but would rather save its
business. The degree of responsibility of Apple in this case depends on its knowledge of the
harsh conditions there and its actions to make sure that Foxconn is following the human rights
law as the supplier of Apple.
2. Outsourcing has been an efficient and profitable option for many multinational
corporations. What responsibility does the primary producer have to ensure that human
rights are fostered and responsibilities are met by the subcontracting company?
The responsibility of the primary producer as the main company selling the products is great. For
instance, Apple is the primary producer and Foxconn is the subcontracting company. Both of
them are doing just the same products for Apple. In the end, the finished products will be sold by
Apple under its name and not under Foxconn. The consumers will not be aware that some parts
of the products are associated with Foxconn unless they read this information somewhere. Since
Apple is the primary company and the one selling the products under its name and brand, then it
should be responsible in ensuring that its suppliers are following its standards and that includes
respecting the human rights of the people according to the law. Apple is responsible to check if
the company are complying or not and make the necessary changes when suppliers are not
following.
3. Many people own at least one Apple product. To what degree are consumers cooperating
in the human rights abuses at Foxconn?
When consumers already know the human rights violation of the suppliers of Apple and Apple
knows about it but did not do any action, then the consumers are responsible to tell Apple that
they are doing a wrong thing by not buying their products. However, when Apple already did its
best in correcting the mistake and the consumers are buying the products because they need it,
then they are not responsible anymore for the human rights abuses at Foxconn. Many people do
not even know about it so they will not be responsible even when they buy the products. This is a
problem of Apple to its suppliers and the consumers are just creating demands and it is up to
Apple on how to keep on those demands without violating human dignity and human rights.
4. It could be argued that if it weren’t for Apple using Foxconn as its supplier, the people
working in these factories might suffer even more from human rights violations. After all,
Apple is attempting to remedy violations that the FLA identifies. Further, without Apple’s
demand for their labor, the workers might not have jobs and might be living lives of abject
poverty. Is this supply chain, despite the credible reports of human rights abuses, a
“necessary evil”?
In one way, the jobs created by Apple help the people there. What is not right is the working
conditions that workers work 7 days a week and work more than 60 hours a week. This is not
right anymore and this endangers the lives of the workers that some of them just kill themselves
to escape their misery. Since the jobs really help and improve the standard of living of the
people, it is not necessary evil. It only becomes evil when profit comes first before people that
Foxconn do not care anymore even if their employees die working as long as they deliver the
demand needed by Apple. It is their company so Foxconn is the main responsible for that. Apple
has other suppliers but that problem is not present in other suppliers because they manage their
business well unlike Foxconn who are thinking more about profit than people.
Ch7
Case study #1: One Acre Fund
1. What do you think about Andrew Youn and John Gachunga’s decision to launch the
OAF after graduate school? Is this a good way to apply the skills acquired by these talented
young businessmen? Should business schools promote this kind of social entrepreneurship
in their MBA programs?
I think that what Youn and Gachunga’s decision to launch OAF after graduate school is an
excellent idea. Although the organization was a non-profit, it helps a lot of farmers yield more
crops which also means more income for them and more income for their family. This is a good
way to apply their skills because they are making a sustainable organization which means that
they can also be good businessmen. Schools should promote this kind of social entrepreneurship
because it is a big help to many poor communities and it can have a positive impact in the
economy of the nation and the world as well. When more farmers benefit from the program, they
will have more harvest which means more supply for the world. With more supply, these farmers
can have more money and more purchasing power. They can buy more things and other
industries will also benefit from increased sales as well.
2. In what ways do you think that OAF was inspired by a genuine sense of solidarity? How
does solidarity inform the ongoing operation of the fund?
It was inspired by a genuine sense of solidarity because it takes a genuine and caring heart to
start the OAF since it is a non-profit organization. Solidarity makes the farmers help each other
by paying their debts on time so other farmers can also benefit from the program. Without
solidarity, farmers cannot benefit from it because the money will be gone fast when nobody is
cooperating by paying on time. Also, solidarity makes more farmers invite people like them who
can benefit from the program and together they help each other grow and increase their profit
and standard of living.
3. Do you think the six values of the OAF are adequate and helpful for employees of the
OAF? Would you add other values to this list? Do any seem unnecessary? Have you ever
worked at a company that had an explicity set of values or a code of conduct? How did it
compare to the list of values at OAF?
They are good for the farmers but I do not think they are enough for the employees of the OAF.
These employees have their own needs and they have their families, too. That means that their
situation should also be considered. The six values should include the values that will benefit the
employees because they are the ones that make the OAF run and without them, nobody can
benefit from the OAF program. However, it is good that employees are taught to be humble and
word hard. However, the employees should not be forced to work hard when they cannot like
when they are sick. The health and life of employees are also important so OAF should take care
of them.
4. Can you think of a need that could be met using the same kind of moral imagination
Youn and Gachunga used when they conceived of a better way to finance rural farming in
Africa?
I think of the need of people addicted in drugs of ex-convicts and also the situation of the
gangsters mentioned in the other case since these people find it hard to get employment. When
this same kind of moral imagination is used to help these people, then the crimes will decrease
and safety in the community will increase. There will be fewer problems with peace and order.
When these people are given chance and trained how to get income from other jobs, then they
will be more productive and they can contribute to the society better.
Case #2: The Solar Suitcase
1. Like the One Acre Fund, We Care Solar decided to organize tits business around a
nonprofit model. Are there advantages to this business model? Why do you think these
companies decided to use this model?
The advantages to this model is that it can attract more people who want to help the society
knowing that the model is a nonprofit and was designed to help the community first rather than
to make profit. Aside from that, it can save more lives and like what happened in Nigeria, the
mortality rate fell down and many lives were saved because of the project. More than money,
this nonprofit model saves lives of many.
2. In what ways does the principle of solidarity apply in this case? When and how did the
founders demonstrate solidarity?
The principle of solidarity applies in the willingness of Dr. Laura Statchel to spend time and
effort together with her husband to create an invention that will help the people in Nigeria. It
happened when Dr. Statchel felt the need to help the people in Nigeria with the highest mortality
rate in the world. It was not a desire to get profit from them because the people there are not rich
but with the help of other people who are willing to help, mortality rates went down and the
Solar Suitcase was able to help many individuals. As the production will go higher, the price of
the Solar Suitcase will be cheaper and will benefit more and more people. Although they do not
have the money, the solidarity of the people uniting together to help them will be enough to save
the many lives in Nigeria.
3. What considerations – other than price and quantity – might We Care Solar consider as
they continue to refine their product to better meet the needs of their customers?
When they refine the product, they might want to consider the quality of We Care Solar. That
means that the product should last for many years so as the supply goes higher, the availability of
it will increase as well and more and more people will benefit from it. If it lasts for just a year,
the money spent on We Care Solar suitcase will not be that much valuable because it can last for
only a year. So, the quality should also be the focus.
4. Using We Care Solar as a model, can you think of other circumstances in which the
application of a relatively simple technology or service made an important difference in the
lives of a large number of people?
There are many circumstances like this just like the people creating a machine that can clean
water so people will not have diseases from cleaning water. I also saw recently that people create
simple machine that can reduce the heat inside the home. These are people who have the
resources joining together to help those who do not have the resources to help themselves. These
are great examples of solidarity in which people unite to help other people. There are still many
projects like these that we might not know but there are still many people who are willing to help
many communities in the world.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment