Etch-a-Sketch
Etch-A-Sketch
Ohio Art Company was in risk of going bankruptcy after the company was forced to increase the price of toys due to the increase in overhead. The company decided it would be wise to take their production into China where the price of labor and other overhead cost were substantially lower. This is a decision many companies in the US are making today.
Was it ethical of the OAC to move production to China? I think there were some ethical risk of the company going overseas but I think it was something that needed to happen in order for the company to stay afloat. I think OAC would have gone bankrupt with the amount of overhead they were paying. It also provided jobs and opportunity to people who were less fortunate that an Americans. With that said it does take away jobs from Americans who worked there for a number of years. So some may see that OAC took an unethical approach to the solving the problem. Also the company did not follow up with the working conditions of the factory in China until there was a strike, therefore making the company look unethical.
What were the economic and social costs and benefits of this decision? With moving to another country and lowering cost, this allowed the company to stay competitive. Also, with lowering overhead, this allowed OAC to sell their product to the customer at a lower price. The social cost would be the destruction on the company’s “family” and the bad look of encouragement of inexcusable conditions of company’s employee across seas. If OAC did not move the production to China, they would have gone bankrupt or lose a majority of their customer base to cheaper toys. It was unfortunate for the workers, but OAC had to make a decision because they could not find a better way to stay completive and lower cost.
Assuming that the NYT reporting was accurate, is it ethical for the OAC to continue working with Kin Ki? Yes, I believe the only way for OAC to keep working with the company is to make sure the
Ohio Art Company was in risk of going bankruptcy after the company was forced to increase the price of toys due to the increase in overhead. The company decided it would be wise to take their production into China where the price of labor and other overhead cost were substantially lower. This is a decision many companies in the US are making today.
Was it ethical of the OAC to move production to China? I think there were some ethical risk of the company going overseas but I think it was something that needed to happen in order for the company to stay afloat. I think OAC would have gone bankrupt with the amount of overhead they were paying. It also provided jobs and opportunity to people who were less fortunate that an Americans. With that said it does take away jobs from Americans who worked there for a number of years. So some may see that OAC took an unethical approach to the solving the problem. Also the company did not follow up with the working conditions of the factory in China until there was a strike, therefore making the company look unethical.
What were the economic and social costs and benefits of this decision? With moving to another country and lowering cost, this allowed the company to stay competitive. Also, with lowering overhead, this allowed OAC to sell their product to the customer at a lower price. The social cost would be the destruction on the company’s “family” and the bad look of encouragement of inexcusable conditions of company’s employee across seas. If OAC did not move the production to China, they would have gone bankrupt or lose a majority of their customer base to cheaper toys. It was unfortunate for the workers, but OAC had to make a decision because they could not find a better way to stay completive and lower cost.
Assuming that the NYT reporting was accurate, is it ethical for the OAC to continue working with Kin Ki? Yes, I believe the only way for OAC to keep working with the company is to make sure the