Answer:
They are definitely responsible.
Explanation:
Denis Arnold and Norman Bowie advocate for corporate responsibility in their article "Sweatshops and Respect for Persons" (Business Ethics Quarterly 13 - 2003).
<em>"MNE's have a moral duty to ensure their business partners respect employees by ensuring that human rights are not violated in the workplace."</em>
Corporations can't turn a blind eye on abuses committed in countries where they outsource their production.
Answer:
.a. import sweaters from Britain and export machinery to Britain.
Explanation:
A lower opportunity cost of manufacturing a particular goods means that a country uses fewer inputs in production compared to other nations. The country can produce more quantities of the product using similar factors of production. A lower opportunity cost in manufacturing will make a country's output cheaper compared to when that product is manufactured in other nations.
Varying production costs form the basis of international trade. A County imports commodities that are produced cheaply elsewhere and exports the goods it can manufacture at a lower cost. The united states can produce machinery at a lower cost than Britain. Britain will be prudent to import machinery from the united states rather than produce. Britain produces sweaters using fewer inputs that the US. The US will find importing sweaters from Britain more economical compared to manufacturing.
Answer: option 3
Explanation:
Background to the case:
The cases involving the explosion of Ford Pinto's due to a defective fuel system design led to the debate of many issues, most centering around the use by Ford of a cost-benefit analysis and the ethics surrounding its decision not to upgrade the fuel system based on this analysis.
Basis of analysis:
Should a risk/benefit analysis be used in situations where a defect in manufacturing could lead to seriously bodily harm and even worse death, such as in the Ford Pinto situation?
Rule of the court:
There hasn’t really been a definite decision about the case and arguments both for and against such an analysis have been made. It is an economically efficient method which has been accepted by courts for numerous years, however, juries may not always agree, so companies should take this into account.
Discretion is expected to be used.
Answer: $20000
Explanation:
Since $100,000 is paid for the contract which will provide the use of manufacturing equipment for 5 years, the payment that can be deducted for each of the 5 years will be an equal payment.
Therefore, the payment that X Corp. can deduct in 2018 will be:
= $100,000 / 5
= $20000
