H.B. Fuller is Not Morally Responsible for the Addiction of Street Chil

H.B. brimful is non Morally Responsible for the Addiction of Street Children to its Resistol Products1.In your judgment, is H.B. Fuller chastely trustworthy for the addiction of street children to its Resistol intersection points?In my opinion, H.B. Fuller is not virtuously responsible for the addiction of street children to its Resistol products. A corporation is chastely responsible only for those acts and their foreseen injurious deeds (a) which the corporation knowingly and freely performed or brought about and which it was morally wrong for the corporation to fail to perform or prevent and/or (b) which the person knowingly and freely failed to perform or prevent and which it was morally wrong for the corporation to fail to perform or prevent. Only two conditions completely eliminate a persons moral obligation for causing a wrongful injury (1) ignorance and (2) inability. I believe that H.B. Fuller isnt morally responsible because once it released its product, it had n either control nor knowledge of how its product were to be misused. When projecting the circumstances of why H.B. Fullers product was abused, H.B. Fuller rattling helped out the economic problem by providing employment for the region. No arguing can be made that H.B. Fuller did not make attempts to end the misuse of its product. There is a fine line, however, between whether H.B. Fuller was morally responsible and if it had a moral obligation to intervene to help the issue.To understand this issue from both sides, it is also important to gain a locating from the corporate finance world. Understanding that the goal of a corporation is to increase the profits of its shareholders, H.B. Fuller really did not name a hearty obligation. If, howe... ...one that it did not do?Although Fuller made every attempt it conceit was necessary to prevent its products from causing harm, it could obligate provided more intervention. First, H.B. Fuller should have put more research into mustard seed oil and its effect on adhesives like the United States chemical companies had done. Research into this solving would inquire consulting with the FDA to solidify positive results. This could have very well been an easy solution to Fuller and the Latin American children. Second, Fuller should have decided to surrender its product earlier than it did. If it did make this decision, then all sales should be eliminated, not just to retailers but to industrial vendors as well. Lastly, the company should have communicated more effectively with its parent company in the US to ponder a sound plan to addressing its ethical dilemma.