Nov-16Ethi Flashcards
Nov-16Ethi
- Celebrity’s Liability for Endorsing Product
- Corporate Governance
- Right to be Forgotten
- Asylum Issue
9.1. CELEBRITY’S LIABILITY FOR ENDORSING PRODUCT
Why in news?
The Consumer Protection Bill, 2015, which seeks to replace the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by inserting tough measures for the protection of consumer rights and providing strict punishment to violators, is currently under consideration.
It was referred to a Standing Committee, which gave a report suggesting measures like making celebrities accountable for the brands they endorse, and called for severe penalties such as jail term for celebrities endorsing the brands, publishers and broadcasters of misleading advertisements and manufacturers of such products.
However, a high level Group of Ministers (GoM) recently decided that instead of jail term for the endorsers they would face a fine up to Rs 50 lakh and a ban on appearing for advertisements for up to three years.
Ethical issue
Celebrities have faced criticism recently for not only endorsing products in misleading ads but also publicly supporting political or social causes. In this light the question that arises is whether celebrities should be liable for what they say or endorse in public? Should there be a greater vigilance on them as against a normal person?
Why should celebrity be held liable?
Duty of Care
Being a public figure confers a certain status in our society and gives one great reach and influence. It is a fact that more people listen to them because they are ‘celebrities’.
The very basis of endorsing a product by a celebrity is the presence of trust and goodwill. The idea is to persuade the public by an identifiable individual who enjoys the confidence of the people.
Direct influence of celebrity on consumer behaviour is proven. That is why in India more than 50% of advertisements have celebrities in them.
Thus, there has to be a duty of care.
Moral Responsibility
Even the celebrity knows his image and words will influence the choice/minds of the viewers. Thus, it becomes a moral responsibility on him to know about the properness of the product as he becomes an important link in the chain between the producer and final consumer.
Celebrities have moral obligation of care towards the vulnerable sections of society especially children who are most easily swayed by their endorsement.
Commercial Linkage
The celebrity is making monetary profits by commercial exploitation of this goodwill. Thus, there lies a corresponding duty towards the consumers.
Legal Liability
S.24 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 prohibits any person from promoting unfair trade practices which includes false or misleading advertisements.
S.53 of the FSS Act put a liability on the party to publication of false advertisement with respect to nature, substance, quality, etc of the product. A celebrity endorsing the products could be interpreted to be included in this.
Issue in making them liable
It can be argued that the celebrity naturally should rely on the credibility of the experts on whose advice the product is being endorsed.
Further, the celebrity would not have the time and resources to find out about the authenticity of the claims.
However, in such cases it must be seen that the celebrity performs due diligence with respect to quality and claims of the product. She must take the extra effort to go through the reports which are available in public before taking the contract.
Way forward
Celebrities have a duty of care towards the public and thus should perform due diligence on their behalf.
Given that the public seems to credit celebrities with more knowledge than they should, celebrities probably have an extra duty to be clear about the gaps in their knowledge.
Further, for products that are harmful when consumed in excess (e.g. soft drinks, junk food) the celebrity must precaution against excess consumption and entail advisory the long-term consequences.
9.2. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
Why in news?
Global Financial Stability report recently published by
IMF suggests that while corporate governance norms
have improved across emerging markets, corporate
governance standards fell in India between 2006-
2014.
Also, the Chairman of TATA sons was sacked recently.
These events bring into question the level of ethical corporate governance in the country.
Objective of Corporate Governance
To build up an environment of trust and confidence amongst those having competing and conflicting interest
To enhance the shareholders‟ value and protect the interest of other stakeholders by enhancing the corporate performance and accountability Larger issue of corporate governance
“Shareholder value” is an economic imperative. The business judgment rule allows boards and managers to easily get away with pet projects, the avoidance of difficult decisions, or the excuse that “as long as the music is playing (for our industry), we have to dance.”
The single most important job of the board is getting the right CEO. A close corollary is its willingness to get rid of the wrong CEO.
External shareholders are inherently, significantly constrained regarding what they can know. ex: the bonuses received by CEOs during the 2008 Financial Crisis.
When it comes to executive compensation, “How” is much more important than “How much.”
To provide a balance of advisory support as well as monitoring oversight.
Overconfidence and hindsight bias stay enemies of effective governance.
Steps taken
A new Companies Act which has tightened norms to be followed by firms;
Tightening of regulations relating to minority protection by market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India or Sebi, and
Surge in investor activism in the country is helping corporate governance.
Disclosures have increased in India as stated in the report and as is evident from the companies Act, 2013 and provision of e-voting facility to the shareholders, the indices for ‘Protection of Minority Shareholders’ Interests’ and ‘Strength of Auditing and Reporting Standards’ ought to increase. Maintaining freedoms of cyberspace.
Box–Ethical Issues involved with corporate governance
Manner of non-transparent removal and promotion
Independence given to CEO and monitoring role of Board
Work Culture and ethos of the organisation
Accountability issues
Disclosure of information and audit.
9.3. RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN
Why in news?
The EU Court of Justice ruled, “Individuals have the right – under certain conditions – to ask search engines to remove links with personal information about them.” This means that search engines like Google and Bing will have to remove some search results from their pages.
What is it?
The right to be forgotten “reflects the claim of an individual to have certain data deleted so that third persons can no longer trace them.” It is in coherence with the right to privacy too.
Arguments against
Censoring and Media: Any sort of censoring is bad. It censors what we see. Media and Internet companies support for information to stay online (except when unlawful under defamation, copyright, or criminal law).
Against FRs:
It is a violation of the freedom of expression.
Journalists lose their livelihood. Hence, it is against right to livelihood too.
Restricting online space may lead to ‘partisan’ removal of important content against a particular organisation or individual. It is against right to information. For ex: Reliance, Satyam scandal.
Controlling social behaviour: It is a significant tool for social control by sensitising human behaviour and upholds the mores of a society.
Reputation and integrity: “Right to be forgotten” will make it difficult for people to maintain the hard earned reputation and integrity. For example, Vijay Mallya’s information or Kingfisher’s info, if removed after some years, it may remove incentive to walk the right path. It may be used for violating ‘net neutrality’ by giants like Google in future.
Arguments in favour Reformative justice: “Right to be forgotten” is necessary to provide conditions where offenders after conviction of their sentences can live their reformed lives. To prevent them from being bullied, the right is necessary. For eg. a sex offender For solidarity and respect, for respect and dignity of humanity – such content has to be removed. Without this right, it’ll be very hard to change the ‘moral and political attitudes’ of general society.
In the real world, information sediments over time, affording people the capacity to move on, remembering but not being burdened by their past. Individual right to privacy: If someone doesn’t want their personal information, it has to be taken down. Following are related aspects: Demand for removal: Google received over 50,000 requests for articles to be removed from search results
Consent: Many videos are uploaded without ‘consent’. If there is data which hurts the people’s privacy, then it must be taken down.
Also privacy is a Fundamental right, under Art. 21 by SC in Kharak Singh case.
Also much of content is just ‘rumours’ or just ‘speculations’. Celebrities suffer a lot from this. New Digital Age: People are unaccustomed to internet and make a lot of mistakes, and learn from them, but with smartphones in almost everybody’s hands, those mistakes may never be able to be forgotten without rulings like in the EU.
This is more than ‘double jeopardy’.
With the cyber bullying, young people, adolescents and kids are especially vulnerable. Reputation: Many articles based on ‘half-truths’ still continue on Internet even after ‘criminal defamation’ case is won by the victim. The presence of this data on Internet is itself a crime, which has to be taken down meticulously. Unnecessary information: The original sources of information which are decades old are static, unrepresentative reminders of lives past, lacking the dynamic of reality. For Example
Victims of rape, assault or other criminal acts; that they were once an incidental witness to tragedy.
Revenge posts for a person’s name remaining an unduly prominent part of a person’s Internet footprint.
Takeaways from Right to be forgotten
EU ruling supports for removal of all the “incorrect, inadequate or misleading”. The relevant information remains accessible. For example-information about elected politicians, public officials, professionals and criminals.
The point of having this right is not to manipulate memory or eliminate information, but to make it less prominent, where justified, and combat the side-effects of this uniquely modern phenomenon that information is instantly, globally, and perpetually accessible. Way Forward
The control over our personal data has already been lost online: lost to corporations, to governments; to each other as a trade-off to be empowered by huge benefits of digital connectivity and global information flows.
Right to be forgotten need to be in sync with “right to delist” as impact of the label “right to be forgotten” takes the issue into debates of– forgetting vs remembering, privacy vs freedom of expression, censorship vs truth or history.
We need to make a consensus about who is going to decide which content to be removed is important for maintaining impartiality, objectivity
9.4. ASYLUM ISSUE
Why in News?
Brahambagh Bugti, the Baloch leader who left Pakistan in 2006 sought asylum in India in September 2016. The application is being examined by the government.
India’s stand for refugees
India does not have any law governing the issue of asylum nor does the term “refugee” appear in any of the domestic laws.
The government decides on granting asylum depending on case-to-case basis.
In 1959, India gave asylum to the Dalai Lama and other Tibetans and regarded them as refugees. However, it did not get involved in the conflict between Tibet and China.
India has also provided Taslima Nasreen visa from time to time since 2004 after she was exiled from Bangladesh.
In December 2015, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor introduced a Private Member’s Bill called the Asylum Bill, 2015. The Bill is yet to be taken up for consideration.
Ethical Issues involved
Safety of the citizens when asylum is granted to any individual simply on humanitarian grounds.
Consensus on criteria for granting asylum to an individual.
Preparedness of the country for granting asylum to thousands of individuals after a few have been granted the same.
Question of fairness over livelihood of people of the country to let outsiders enjoy the same opportunities as them.
Way Forward
Proper background check should be carried out for each asylum seeker.
Impact of granting asylum on the livelihood and lifestyle of the citizens of this country must be assessed.
