The paper 'Promoting the Car Phone Despite Risks' is a wonderful example of a Business Case Study. Wireless service providers and mobile phone providers carry out promotional strategies that appeal to drivers as their main market target. They carry out these promotions with the aim of promoting the sales of their products. Ethically, this is basically wrong because as they promote the use of phones, they are aware that phones could cause accidents leading to bodily injury and even deaths. However, they also carry out educative campaigns that warn drivers that they should not talk while driving because it is hazardous.
AT& T put stickers on the front part of their phones indicating that drivers should not text as they drive. Their information is conflicting because they mix both the information. They are promoting the use of hand-free devices and at the same time, they are warning customers against the same case. This type of information is confusing to the customers as to what decision to follow. Customers tend to be compelled by what the media advertise. For instance, they showcase a man driving while a message is conveyed saying that you can drive and at the same time care for what is on the other end.
The same advert shows the wife on the other side making a call while on a speedboat. Such adverts are confusing to the customers who would want to do exactly what they see being portrayed in the media. On the other hand, the Democrat representative, Mr. Simitian, comes to support the use of hands-free devices while driving because it’ s more effective. By this, he thinks that drivers would be less distracted to focus on the road while driving.
He however fails to get the support of mobile industries such as AT& T. This is a conflict of interest between Mr. Simitian and mobile phone industries. The campaign of lobbying the act of legislating a hands-free phone is turned down by the same people who had proposed the idea. This is contrary to the codes of ASME that prohibits members from engaging in conflicting situations with others. They should by all means avoid conflicting issues with others in this case; AT& T and Cingular industries have not honored the ethical codes of ASME despite the fact that their industry lies in the technological sector. The industries at one point negate statements that they do not know what hand-free devices are.
They say this in response to the Simitian claim to lobby the companies producing hands-free mobile phone devices. The Oregon State University (2011) supports the industries that to some extent they are ethically right when they carry out an educational campaign against warning the users of the mobile phones not to do that while driving.
They are aware of the dangers of using the device while driving and therefore it is ethically right when they alert the drivers not to use the devices. But they again negate these ethics when they continue designing devices that promote the use of phones while driving. Minton (1998) notes that as they continue to evolve their mobile industry, they are very aware that their educational efforts are not working.
Armstrong, S. (2011). “Consequentiality Ethics Theory.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Retrieved From,
Cullen M. (2003).Ethical Uses Of Cell Phones. Cell Phone Code of Ethics. 34(7) 55-60
Hart, P. (1997). Wireless Telephone Safety. Wireless Users and Non Users Nationwide. ; A Broader Perspective. 13(6) 23-25
Hurst, R. (2010). “Virtue Ethics.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved From;
Lucas, M. (1999).The Motive behind Promoting Hands Free Mobile Devices While Driving. A Journal of Ethical Issues in Marketing.5 (8) 211-213
Minton, (1998). “Cellular Phones and Fatal Traffic Collisions. “Accidents Analysis and Prevention.” 30(4) 17-22
Nilsson, A. (1996). Changes in Driver Behavior. Function of Hands Free Mobile Telephones. Accidents Analysis and Prevention, 23(7) 201-209
The Oregon State University. (2011) Cell Phones, Driving Don’t Mix. Science Daily, Dec 9
Suleiman, E. (2005).”ASME.”Codes and Standards. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering.12 (6) 54-59
Stevens, A. (2001). In Vehicle Distractions and Fatal Accidents. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 33(4) 33-39