Introduction

The article that Lieber has written is pretty scathing towards credit score companies, but mainly in this case towards Equifax. Essentially, the writer argues that these credit score companies arbitrarily assign people credit score that hurt their lives, scam them when the companies themselves make mistakes, don’t even attempt to be up front with them about stuff, and continue to try and milk them for money. Especially when the Equifax breach happened, and they were being called by customers simply wanting assistance, or to check if their information was compromised, Equifax couldn’t or wouldn’t help them, either out of sheer incompetence, or because they knew that they could milk even this massive security breach for money from desperate people that may be in need. Going even further, some of the leaders in Equifax sold stock before the report they were breached dropped, to cash out before the stock crashed. In this case Analysis, I’m going to argue Deontology shows us that the Equifax breach harmed the innocent customers using it by blatantly trying to extort them for money both before, and after the breach, and that this was morally bad at best, and completely morally bankrupt at worst.

Friedman’s Case

Deontology is generally described as an ethical study of doing the right thing, and following your duty, don’t lie, cheat, or steal, all of which I would argue that Equifax did both before and after the breach. Equifax had an obligation to do the right thing by not only being at least a competent company, but not extorting their customers before and after the breach; if not to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, then to keep the trust of their customers, and earn their loyalty which would secure future income. Pulling from Friedman’s “The Social Responsibility of Business”, he essentially argues that companies largely only have one singular duty: to make money and generate profit. To a degree, I believe this is true, enterprises are by design supposed to generate income to pay for business needs, pay employees, keep themselves afloat, and to expand themselves both for its own benefit and the benefit of those who rely on the enterprise. That being said, that profit generation should not come at the expense of the customers who rely on the enterprise. By extorting customers to monitor their credit scores in case of an information breach, then going further to charge people in pure distress over a breach that Equifax not only allowed to happen, but blatantly hesitated to communicate, they outright refused to do the right thing. This in turn led to lawsuits, members of the organization losing their jobs (some after cashing out by selling their stocks), and Equifax and similar companies losing business from people who would have had to turn to them for business in the first place!

They had business secured by default, by the sheer fact that they deal in credit and credit, something that most people in the United States and many outsides of it rely on for jobs, big purchases, and everyday spending. By simply doing the right thing like having proper security measures in place, notifying customers in a timely manner after the breach occurred, and not trying to extort them after the fact, they at least would have retained a large portion of customers even after a blunder like the breach.  
Friedman also goes into “social responsibility”, saying that the individuals in the company are their own people, and that those people have responsibilities outside of the company. In the example, he argues that an executive changing the price of a good for the betterment of society would come at the cost of his fellow company men, and at the cost of shareholders; the principle of consequences is applied here. By doing the right thing for some people, it comes at the cost of doing the wrong thing for other people. I would argue this point by saying that reducing the price of a product or service will, in the long term, be worth more for the company and shareholders. By doing the right thing, and making something more affordable for the public, you can secure the loyalty of a large amount of customers, ensure that people will continue buying your more affordable product, and that will in turn generate more long-term profit as opposed to it being more expensive, but immediately being worth more. Companies, even though they have no innate responsibility to do the right thing, can still be motivated to do the right thing if for no other reason than it is more profitable in the long-term than doing the wrong thing.

Anshen’s case

Anshen argues that companies have a role in business more than simply profit generating: social alleviation. The argument is presented so that as social pressures mount, and society faces more challenges such as poverty and urban issues, companies will be pressured to step up, and assist society in some capacity. Essentially, Anshen seems to argue that companies can help society, and this will in turn be good for the business, generating good will, loyalty, and securing business opportunities in the long term, which I agree with. An example I have in mind is Wal-Mart, the company that has employed me for 6+ years now. I have my own work-based issues with them but exempting those, Wal-Mart is a perfect example.

An international grocery company, expanding into every possible industry you can think of, worth multi-billion dollars, you would be hard pressed to find a place in America not touched by Wal-Mart or one of their subsidiaries. Of course, many people rely on Wal-Mart for their food and goods, but the company takes their business interests a step further; they invest in some low-income communities, are well known for raising money for charities throughout the year, and generally doing various other goodwill events in communities throughout the country. They make enough money they can afford to give back to these communities; you can argue whether this out of good will, or simply to generate public support for the company to cover it’s more questionable dealings and policies throughout the years and even now, but the fact of the matter is they support communities outside of their business obligation to simply generate capital. From a deontological standpoint, this is the right thing to do, even if you can argue it may not be for the right reasons.

Further into Anshen’s article, he argues that a company taking a passive approach to social issues, and refusing to help could eventually lead to the company being damaged as well, which I wholeheartedly agree with. One example that comes to mind is the wave of shoplifting that’s impacting cities like Portland, Oregan. Stores and retailers in low-income areas, and even some more ritzy parts of the city have fallen prey to a months-long crime spree of shoplifting.

The people in these low-income areas have been long neglected by the government, and society at large, and some less fortunate members of these areas have sadly been forced to turn to crime to make ends meet, often at the expense of the retailers they shoplift from. I believe that is companies make it a mission to invest in these low-income areas, give them jobs, and/or set up a long-term education assistance or welfare system to assist them, it would not only help the people in these areas, but society at large and by extension, the company itself. By doing this, the company will reduce loses to shoplifting significantly, they will help raise a community down on it’s luck out of poverty, which will not only improve the lives of those community members, but eventually also cause an increase in income for the company as well thanks to the loyalty and good will generated, as well as the additional money the community will have to spend on necessities and extra items. While I don’t believe in Anshen’s idea that companies are part of a social contract, and are beholden to helping society as a result, I believe from a deontological standpoint, they have a duty to do the right thing if only to protect themselves and their business interests. Equifax is a perfect example of a company not doing the right thing and suffering as a result.

Conclusion

In my eyes, a company by nature can’t do the right thing for completely generous methods, or “because it’s the right thing to do”, but that shouldn’t stop a company from doing the right thing as much as they can. I agree with Friedman on his stance that companies exist to make money and generate profit, but that shouldn’t prevent from doing the right thing and helping society, I would argue it’s the opposite; they have an excuse to help society, and those less fortunate. While again, not out of a moral obligation, but for their own good. This may go a bit against the core idea of deontology, but the right thing is still being done, for not completely corrupt reasons. If a company does the right thing because it’s “the right thing to do”, it could hurt the business just as much as not doing the right thing, like in the Equifax situation.

             Speaking of the Equifax situation, I would argue they were completely morally bankrupt, without a doubt. They had the option to lower prices, exempt credit freeze fees, and not extort the innocent customers suffering from a situation they themselves caused. They were completely in the wrong, no matter how you look at it. Not only was it morally repulsive, it was an awful business move, costing them millions in lost fees and business thanks to trust loss, but it tarnished their name going forward to the point that we’re now discussing how badly they messed up, and why they’re so infamous. They saw the opportunity to abuse a service people more or less have to use and pushed it even further to extort them in a time of crisis, and that’s unforgivable in my eyes and from the aspect of deontology.