timer Asked: Apr 17th, 2020

Question Description

You can move on to Kant's 9 steps now. You need to explain and apply the steps--this can be step-by-step though--it is not an essay. Please do not google anything for this portion. You will not find these steps anywhere.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

"Should Hitoshi Kawaguchi (Nissan Executive Vice president and Chief sustainability officer) lead Nissan away from the production of gas-powered vehicles? Introduction With the establishment of Sustainable Development Goals companies are at the crossroad on how to work towards their achievement while maintaining profitability. Nissan, a global car production company is therefore obligated to comply to these goals. One of the major Sustainable Development Goals of focus in relation to Nissan Company is Climate Action. There is need to ensure that its products are environmental friendly by reducing emissions or completely doing away with them. Such emissions are as a result of use of fuel. The emissions have a negative impact on environment and climate. They lead to global warming, a key driver to climatic change. Nissan is faced by an ethical dilemma of adhering to the SDG and continuing to remain relevant in their business. Due to this, it is important to determine whether Hitoshi Kawaguchi (Nissan Executive Vice president and Chief sustainability officer) lead Nissan away from the production of gas-powered vehicles. The ethical dilemma facing Nissan can be solved through different philosophical points of view including utilitarianism, libertarian, deontologist and Catholic social teachings approaches. "Should Hitoshi Kawaguchi (Nissan Executive Vice president and Chief sustainability officer) lead Nissan away from the production of gas-powered vehicles? Utilitarianism One of the key challenges facing any automotive company in regard to adhering to the SDG is the production of gas-powered vehicles. Being the Vice president and the Chief Sustainability Officer, Hitoshi Kawaguchi is faced by a dilemma. Hitoshi Kawaguchi can either lead Nissan away from the production of gas-powered vehicles (Option A) or continue overseeing their production (Option B). Any of the two options could have a significant impact on Hitoshi Kawaguchi in regard to the effect each option has on Nissan company. Leading the company away from the production of gas-powered vehicles has a positive impact on the company's adherence to the SDG in relation to climate action. However, the same option may have significant impact on the company's profitability as it majorly deals with gas-powered vehicles which means that Nissan is likely to experience significant loses. As a result, Hitoshi Kawaguchi's leadership strategy in steering the company to achieve its goals will be in question since despite being the Chief Sustainability Officer, he is also the Executive vice president hence expected to demonstrate exemplary leadership in steering Nissan towards becoming more profitable. Taking option B (Continuing to oversee the production of gas-powered vehicles also puts his role in jeopardy as the Chief Sustainability officer entrusted with overseeing the implementation of the SDGs specifically in relation to Climate action. Taking a utilitarianism approach to this dilemma could help solve it. Utilitarianism dictates that the best action to be taken from a number of actions is the one whose outcome results to a greater good meaning beneficial to most people. In this scenario there are three groups of people involved whom can be affected by any of the two options Hitoshi Kawaguchi can take: The owners of the Nissan company, Hitoshi Kawaguchi and the general population which is likely to be affected by the emissions from gas-powered vehicles by Nissan. If Hitoshi Kawaguchi takes the option of leading Nissan away from gas-powered vehicles, the owners of the company could experience loses before establishing a new market. The same decision is also likely to lead to loss of job by Hitoshi Kawaguchi due to poor performance as the executive vice president who has been entrusted with leading to ensure the company meets its primary goal of making profits. However, the decision is beneficial to the general population since it will reduce emissions which lead to global warming and climate change thereafter. If Hitoshi Kawaguchi takes the second option of overseeing the continued production of gas-powered vehicles it will be beneficial to Nissan owners since they will continue to make profits and Hitoshi Kawaguchi who will keep his job as well get a chance of being promoted. However, the option is likely to negatively impact the general world population as continued emissions are likely to lead to climatic change which could negatively impact the livelihood of all people all over the world. The people affected by the scenario: 1. Nissan Company owners • Option A: Pain: 7 X 1 (Long-term) • Option B: Pleasure: 3 x 1 (short-term) 2. Nissan Company Employees (excluding Hitoshi Kawaguchi and Top Management) (138,910 people) • Option A: Pain: 6 x 138,910 (Short-term) • Option B: Pleasure: 9 x 138,910 (Long-term) 3. World Population (7.53 billion people) • Option A: Pleasure: 10 x 7.53 billion (Long-term) • Option B: Pain: 10 x 7.53 billion (Long-term) 4. Hitoshi Kawaguchi • Option A: Pain: 7x1 (Short-term) • Option B: Pleasure: 8x 1 (Long-term) 5. Nissan's Top management • Option A: Pain: 7 x 50 (or less) (Short term) • Option B: Pleasure: 5 x 50 (or less) (Long-term) 6. Shareholders • Option A: Pain: 8 x 10000 (Or less) (Short-term) • Option B: Pleasure: 5 x 10000 (or less) (Long-term) 7. Board of directors • Option A: Pain: 8 x 10 (Short-term) • Option B: Pleasure: 7 x 8 (Long-term) 8. Government tax agency • Option A: Pain 6 x 1 (Short-term) • Option B: Pleasure: 8 X 1 (Long-term) 9. Customers and clients • Option A: Pleasure: 8 X infinite (Long-term) • Option B: Pain: 7 x infinite (Long-term) By considering the two possible options and the impact each of the options may have to the different groups of people, a utilitarian decision would require Hitoshi Kawaguchi to lead Nissan away from production of gas-powered vehicles. The decision will have the most benefit to the greatest number of people. Resolving the Dilemma from a Libertarian Approach The Libertarian approach of solving a dilemma values an individual's freedom to make and implement decisions without political, social, and legal systems. This approach endorses a free market that is controlled by market forces rather than limitations from external forces that are not related to demand and supply. The approach advocated for substantial rights to distinct liberty and private property. Hitoshi Kawaguchi may also decide to use the libertarian approach to analyze and resolve the current dilemma he faces on whether to continue the production of gas or fuel-powered vehicles or to implement other business strategies to manufacture cares that do not use fuel or gas, probably rechargeable cars, solar-powered or electric cars. From a libertarian’s approach point of view, Hitoshi Kawaguchi would argue that Nisan is operating in a free market, and therefore, the company should be left to make market and production decisions according to the market forces. Therefore, he would not expect the government, NGOs, and advocate bodies to influence or control the decisions that Nissan and other car manufacturers would take. As a result, he would decide on whether to continue the manufacture of fuel and gas-powered cars or to shift away from them based on market forces, costs, and resources available for the company to make and implement any of the two decisions profitably, efficiently and competitively. Libertarian approach utilizes political philosophies that uphold liberty, freedom of choice, individual judgment, and voluntary association. Consequently, Hitoshi Kawaguchi will exercise his freedom of choice decision making while evaluating the existing and future political and economic system, market forces, client shifts, and the cost implications of his actions in deciding whether or not to lead Nissan in its decision to shift from gas-powered vehicles or not. Regarding this issue, Nissan under the leadership of Hitoshi Kawaguchi is free to choose to shift or not to, as long as the company does not operate against the existing laws or cause harm to the global citizens, whether clients, employees, shareholders or not. How to use Kant’s theory to make a decision in business: 1. What is the ethical dilemma? 2. Who is the agent: The agent is the decision-maker. For this method you should only have one person in the decision-making position. A “company” cannot make a collective decision based on Kant’s methodology in the aggregate. Additionally, there are people within a company whose job descriptions and responsibilities may make their “duty” in a situation differ from another person’s job within the same company. 3. What is the agent’s role in the situation?: For Kant, the intrinsic nature of things relates to the required duty. In order to figure out the “nature” of what is going on, you need to be very specific about what the agent’s role is. 4. What is the nature of the role?: In Sandel, with the case of a murderer chasing someone hiding in your home, the issue relates to you being asked a question—in that situation you have to decide what to respond, which makes you a communicator—your role is a communicator. The “nature” of the act of communication is truth telling. 5. What is the duty associated with the role? This is related to the “nature” of the act and the role of the agent. 6. What is the categorical imperative? A categorical imperative is something that you believe could be a binding command on everyone contemplating this same act. For Kant, things are intrinsically right or wrong—they are always and everywhere right or wrong. There are no exceptions to a rule. For this step, you want to think about the two possible (but opposite) “rules” that you are proposing for the ethical dilemma. One of them will end up being the morally worthy thing to do according to Kant and one will not be morally worthy. 7. Is this categorical imperative universalizable? The purpose of this particular question is to consider the opinion of vastly different people across generations, historical circumstances, genders, religions, etc. Kant believes that objective universal truths exist. However, our own personal emotions, goals, self-interest, social-economic-historical circumstances could lead us in the wrong direction. So we need to try to figure out if other people, who are reasonable people thinking rationally, would agree with our proposal. You don’t want to ask your mom or your best friend because they probably think very similarly to you. This is a difficult one to settle on your own—you have to ask others if you were really using this process in a situation. 8. Would I be willing to switch places with everyone in the scenario? You want to place yourself in the situation that everyone else involved in the scenario would be in. A typical example of this relates to bias in hiring. If a hiring manager has a bias against people nearing retirement, no matter how qualified that person may be for the position, even maybe being the best possible candidate, deciding not hire them would go against the “nature” of the decision to hire the “best possible” candidate and the hiring manager would not want to switch places with someone who is older but perfectly qualified. 9. Am I using someone MERELY as a means to an end? Kant believes that people need to be treated with a deep respect and as an “end” in and of themselves, not JUST a means to an end. An example of this—when I was an adjunct professor at another university, I taught a 15 week course, was paid $1500 for the entire course, had no office, received no benefits, received no review so I could later get a letter of recommendation for a full time job, and no one ever even checked up on me or my class. I was simply a means to that course being taught and nothing more. As a tenure-track professor, I receive a fair salary, benefits, have an office, am constantly reviewed so I know how I’m doing, have access to all sorts of faculty development opportunities, have access to resources that I need to do well in the classroom and in my other responsibilities, etc. I am certainly a means to getting CSR and ethics courses taught…but I’m not MERELY that. I am treated with respect and Dominican cares about my personal and professional situation. Prostitution is another example—one person is seeking sex and the other is seeking money and there is no relationship—each is using the other MERELY as a means to the end of money or sex. When using Kant’s theory, you want to go through ALL of the steps to thoroughly think through the questions. ...
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.
Tags: nnnnnn

This question has not been answered.

Create a free account to get help with this and any other question!

Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors