Question

1. Torts – harms – could be handled more efficiently if society just demanded compensation rather than assigning fault. Thus, for example, DuPont would pay out compensation based in affidavits or exposure according to a schedule of harms. (Worker’s compensation operates in such this way.) Similarly, a firm making lawn mowers could design a foolproof model or a chapter one that is more likely to result in injuries to users. Without the need to assign fault or blame, considerable saving would be achieved through avoiding litigation. The cost of compensation would be passed on to consumers, who would ultimately decide through their purchasing choices whether they prefer more expensive and safer goods or less expensive riskier ones. If there were to be a large number of fraudulent claims, then the market forces at work would lower the amount of compensation for an injury. Do you see any moral problems with this approach?
2. In a Canadian case, there was an unusual cluster of children born about the same time in the same area with underdeveloped or missing eyes. Lawyers claimed that the mothers had all been exposed to microscopic amounts of Benlate, as it was being sprayed on a local orchard. What standard of proof do you think should apply in a case like this? If you were on the board of DuPont, would you assume any responsibility or fight the claim?
3. If you were on the board of DuPont, how would you respond if a Third World country wanted to buy up all the remaining stocks of Benlate at a discount, with assurances that the company would be completely immune from any potential liability?
4. From an environmental point of view, do you believe that chemical pesticides are useful? How do you measure the efficiencies of farming with fungicides against a more natural approach?

Layout References Mailings Review View Help Search he Internet can contain viruses. Unless you need to edit, it's safer to stay in Protected View. Enable Editing DuPont and Benlate At the turn of the century, DuPont is the world's second largest chemical company, with sales of over $30 billion in 2000. In 2001, the company announced that it would cease making its fungicide Benlate. The news release read in part: In 1987 DuPont introduced a dry flowable form (Benlate 50DF) that was recalled in 1989 and 1991 due to the presence of the herbicide atrazine in some lots. The recalls generated hundreds of claims, and growers and their lawyers began blaming Benlate for a wide range of problems. DuPont initially paid may claims to maintain good customer relations. When testing could not duplicate the claimed plant injuries, the company declined to pay any further claims In the following decade DuPont faced hundreds of Berlate lawsuits. DuPont won cases before some courts... other trials resulted in losses, including some that reflected the runaway verdicts being rendered by the U.S. jury system in the 1990s. Ultimately, for business reason, the company decided to stop selling Benlate worldwide. Benlate was first synthesized in 1959 and introduced as a fungicide in 1970. It had remarkable properties because, unlike other compounds that stayed on the outside of the plant and acted as a shield, Benlate was able to penetrate the plant and actually protect it from the inside. It helped turn canola into Canada's main cash crop and effectively defeated a number of fungal infections and molds. By 1979 it was DuPont's top-selling fungicide, with over 100 million in annual sales. In 1987 the DF variant was introduced. Two years later it was permanently recalled because it had been contaminated by expose to other chemicals during production. DuPont was repeated sued. Growers reported that Benlate use had caused crop damage. An Ecuadorian shrimp farm was awarded $12 million because Benlate was linked to poisoning from run-off water of a nearby banana plantation. In 1996 a Florida court awarded damages to the parents of a child who was born blind. Human eyes develop early in pregnancy, and experts testified that exposure to Benlate during the fourth to ninth week of pregnancy could lead to anopthalmin - a condition where the eyes fail to develop Focus RII Final Exam - Dupon O 20 e prt sc > 40 + Da $ 193 & 17 o 8 9

Answer 1

Answer:

If I were on the board of the Dupont then as a responsible corporate citizen who is equally responsible for the society first would like to know whether is possible because of our product, if the risk is being created due to may product and if it is found proof that the product is the potential and the actual reason behind such birth-related defects then I would assume the responsibility that I would not have done my job properly, as we must understand our responsibility towards the society, only writing the possible danger on the product specification and leaflet sheets would not suffice my responsibility of the society, if the product can bring more harm than it brings good, it would not launch such product in the market.

Even if some third world country is asking such product at discount I would prefer not to supply even though my company would be at a financial loss, but instead of short term profit, I should be more concerned about my organization's long term vision and its sustainability. Such an act of selling at discount could completely tarnish the brand and I would prefer not to put the brand's reputation at risk.

Pesticides are meant to be used as per prescribed doses and only when recommended, most of the farmers are using these products more than the recommended doses to avoid their financial risk. Now farmers also need to be equally responsible for the society and the environment it could not be the only responsibility of the company. Without pesticides we actually could not sustain the kind of food demand we have therefore, it is better to use these products but only when its efficacy and safety are well measured and then try to take an integrated approach of chemical and natural farming. The efficiency of farming can be measured through the input versus output and wherever if natural products can give a similar level of production efficiency we must try to promote the same and chemicals should be used only when absolutely necessary.