Case Study of H.B. Fuller Essay

Question No 1: Is H.B.Fuller responsible for the addiction of street children to its Resistol products? Do you agree or disagree with the statement that the social conditions in Honduras and Guatemala are ultimately responsible for misuse of H.B. Fuller products and that neither the product nor the company is to blame? Do you agree or disagree that a parent company is not responsible for the activities of its subsidiaries? Explain your answers full. a) I don’t think that H.B.Fuller is responsible. Because the thing is that they’re just doing their business and nothing else. It’s their right to do whatever business they want. It is just like that when you go to the well, if the dog fell into the well so what we can do then? The company is just concerned with the business of producing glue. To maintain the status of the company, they need to use best chemicals out of best. It is the duty of the company to maintain the quality. If there isn’t any substitute o f that glue then they’re helpless. They can’t hang their company. b) If we talk about the children who were affected by the habit of sniffing the glue, children can understand what is right and what is wrong if they’re the part of the company. If they’re sniffing the glue, it is up to them. Company never said about that. To sniff the glue is their action why the company should be blame? c) Of course! I’m agreeing with the statement that H.B.Fuller is not responsible for the activities of its subsidiary. To let the children know about the duties and precaution is the responsibility of the company. If the children are habitual of this thing, then I just want to say that it’s very hard to get rid of any type addiction. One more thing that I want to discuss is that when I’m drinker then what’s the problem with you? I know about the side effects of this thing. So in this case, company is parent it is right but they’re not taking work from the children for the sake of Allah. Company is paying for what they are doing for the business. Question No 2: In your judgment did H.B.Fuller conduct itself in a morally appropriate manner? Explain your answer. In my point of view, It’s I think a good step which the company taken that they stopped selling of that glue in small jars. If the glue is available in small jars, children have the maximum chance to buy that glue because it is affordable for them. When the company is selling that glue in large size of containers, it becomes much easier to protect the children from using the glue. Because large size of containers must not be in reach of children. We’ll not go for utilitarianism because life is the only thing which is priceless. Company should care about the health of children. They did a good job but it costs the company very much. After all they are running their business in a very large scale having revenue more than $1 Billion (1995). They have found the safe way to protect themselves from winding up the company. Question No 3: What, if anything, should the company have done that it did not do? After considering the whole case, we have got something which is not done by the company but the company should do. The company should advice the children about the use of this glue and also aware the government about this product. I think, after advising the children there might be less chances of spreading disease. Children could be protected from the harmful outcomes. There are some more points which should be taken into the account by the company: †¢ Company should mention the precautions on their product about the usage of the product. †¢ Company should start the campaign regarding the usage of the product. †¢ Company should advice the children time to time about the usage and drawbacks of the product.