The Boeing 737 MAX aircraft 2019 crisis unpacked

Introduction

 

The essay will examine the ethical issues raised by Boeing’s stakeholders regarding the crisis originating from the Ethiopian Airline’s Flight 302 plane crash on the 10th March 2019. In relation to the crisis, the implications of the ethical issue for the PR and communications teams will be analysed, in particular the conflicts with professional codes of conduct the practitioner may have experienced.

 

Background to Boeing 737 MAX aircraft 2019 crisis

 

Boeing is the world’s largest aerospace company and leading manufacturer of commercial jetliners, space, defence and security systems (Boeing,2020). A small list of commercial jetliners produced by Boeing includes the Boeing 767, 777 and 737 MAX purchased by British Airways, Qatar Airways and Ethiopian Airlines to name a few clients (Boeing,2020). The Boeing 737 MAX was known as the company’s best-seller due to the “reliable fuel- and cost-efficient solution to air travel in the 21st century” (Nicas and Creswell,2019). However, after the crisis on the 10th March 2019 (see figure 1 for the timeline of the crisis) Boeing had lost is positioning in the market to Airbus (Slotnick,2019) arguably, due to lack of transparency to Boeings stakeholders (see figure 2 for list of stakeholders). Transparency is viewed as an important function within business ethics and has transformed the public relations functions (Boatright,2000).

 

 

It can be said that the nature of the crisis in which Boeing experienced on the 10th of March 2019 was an operational and reputational crisis (Coombs,2015). It can be argued that Boeing experienced an operations crisis as, during the grounding of all Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, investigators highlighted that there were issues in which Boeing designed, developed and deployed the new Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) (Titan Grey,2019). In addition, former senior operations manager at Boeing, Edward Pierson spoke out about quality issues within the Boeing 737 MAX which was not resolved (Shepardson,2019), which can be viewed as a variable contributing to the outcome of an operations crisis. 

 

The crisis can be labelled as a reputational crisis (Coombs,2015) as Boeing's vision encompasses the safety of their, 'products and services, and the customers who depend on them' (Boeing,2020). However, this juxtaposes statements from employees representing Boeing who state that regulators did not conduct a formal safety assessment of the new version of the MCAS (Nicas et al.,2019) and pilots were only given ‘level b’ training of the operation of the new system, which customers and regulators were not convinced was sufficient training (Broaderick,2020). The lack of transparency between the vision of Boeing and their actions can raise ethical issues and influence the reputation of the organisation.

Figure 1: Primary and Secondary Stakeholder map (see Appendix A for justification of positioning of each stakeholder).

 

 

Analysis of the ethical issue posed by Boeing

 

 

Ethics is a practice concerning with value judgement of right or wrong which can be influenced by the values associated with the norms for conducting business in certain countries (Coombs and Holladay,2010).  Whilst, an issue is a topic of debate that moves from the private sphere into the public sphere and on the media agenda (L’Etang,2009). An ‘issue’ concerning the Boeing 2019 crisis arguably, is the shift of knowledge from the private sphere into the public sphere regarding a lack of transparency with stakeholders. This can be justified as an issue as there are legal implications (L’Etang,2009).

 

To evaluate the ethical issue of lack of transparency between Boeing and its stakeholders, this phenomenon will be explored from a deontological perspective. The phenomenon stresses the rights, moral principles, obligations and duties the organisation has to its stakeholders (Coombs and Holladay,2010). 

 

It can be said that Boeing did not follow their moral principles, which emphasizes that the result of the actions must be ethical, causing the least harm for everyone who is affected (Pojam,1989). Arguably, by Boeing not conducting a formal safety assessment of the new version of the MCAS system (Nicas et al.,2019), this can show a lack of abiding by Boeing's moral principles (Pojam,1989). To explore whether the result of Boeing’s actions were ethical, Boeing’s Ethical Conduct states the importance of risk management (Boeing,2020). However, as there was no formal safety assessment of the new version of the MCAS system (Nicas et al.,2019) this can demonstrate an unfulfillment of Boeing's moral principles which can destroy trust with customers (He et al.,2012). The importance of trust between organisations and customers do have a strong correlation to customer loyalty (He et al.,2012). Arguably by Boeing not abiding by their moral judgements, this has resulted in the company to lose its connections with suppliers and orders due to the lack of customer loyalty (Rushe,2020). 

 

It can be said that Boeings actions did not cause the least harm for everyone effected, therefore not abiding by their moral principles (Pojam,1989). As Boeings actions of not conducting formal safety assessments resulted in 156 deaths aboard the Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 (Helmore,2019). Arguably their actions caused the most harm for everyone affected including customers, investors, families of the passengers aboard the Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 

 

It can be said that Boeing did not adopt a deontological approach, in particular, fulfil their obligations and duties to their customers and the FAA. As Boeing withheld information from the FAA regarding defected parts installed in the 737 MAX and no formal safety assessment of the new version of the MCAS was conducted (Nicas et al.,2019). This action goes against Boeing's Code of Conduct as it states the importance of complying with external regulators and risk management (Boeing,2020). Arguably, observing Boeing's actions of not complying with external regulators and not undergoing safety assessments can demonstrate that Boeing does not fulfil their obligations and duties to practise their Code of Conduct.

 

Implications of the ethical issues for the PR and Communications team

 

An increasing number of public relations (PR) practitioners highlight that nearly every communications decision, holds potential global consequences (Hatcher,2002), which requires ethical standards to be implemented throughout practice (Gower,2003). Traditional ethical conduct in which PR practitioners adopted focused on duties to self, the client (see appendix B) and society (see appendix B) (Wilcox and Cameron,2007). Seib and Fitpatrick (2006) expanded upon these duties which include employer (see appendix C) and profession. 

 

The implication of the ethical issue for the PR and Communications team may contradict their codes of ethics and values (Wilcox and Cameron,2007). The internal contradiction a practitioner may have is the desire to behave in a virtuous manner, this desire arguably relates to virtue ethics which places an emphasis on the persons' character to determine whether their actions are right or wrong (Whetstone,2001). The desire to follow a virtue-base ethical decision can pose a threat to the practitioner as the practice does not provide any guidance on how to resolve ethical dilemmas (Pojman,2006). However, for the practitioner to resolve their ethical dilemma, the Potter Box (Potter, 1958) can be used, as it takes into consideration four aspects: the situation, values, ethical principles and loyalties the practitioner has. We can explore how the PR and Communications team may have resolved the ethical issue presented by adopting the Potter Box (Potter, 1958) as a framework. The team may have felt dishonest (values) by withholding information from the FAA regarding quality issues of the 737 MAX (Shepardson,2019) (the situation) but, due to their obligation to the organisation, they may have overlooked the ethical issue presented. Arguably, the action of the practitioner showing a duty to the organisation can demonstrate the organisation's culture implementing a deontological ethics-based practice.   

 

Arguably, Teleological ethics has a correlation to virtue ethics as both practises is based on moral judgement and focuses on the outcomes of the actions the practitioner undergoes (Coombs and Holladay,2010). It can be said that the Boeing PR and Communications team did not abide by their duties to self as elements of virtue ethics nor teleological ethics is explored through the actions, as the team emphasised their obligation to Boeing (deontological approach) through withholding information from stakeholders.   

 

Grunig (2000) defines professionalism as following a set of professional norms or codes of ethics. Implications the PR and Communications team may have encountered to maintain a professional manner is, following a set of codes of ethics due to principles contradicting each other (Parkinson,2001; Wright,1993). For example, the Boeing Code of Conduct (2020) states to ‘follow all restrictions on use and disclosure of information. This includes following all requirements for protecting Boeing information’ however, this contradicts the following principle of abiding by the law, rules and regulations (Boeing,2020). The practitioner may have been obligated to withhold the information regarding the quality issues raised by engineering during the construction of the Boeing 737 MAX (Shepardson,2019). But, by withholding information contradicts the following principle of abiding by regulations (Boeing,2020) as they should have reported this to the FAA, but Boeing chose to withhold the information (Nicas et al.,2019). 

 

 

Boeing’s response to ethical issue

 

In response to the ethical issues, Boeing recommended that pilots receive training in a flight simulator to gain public and airline confidence in the 737 MAX (The Guardian, 2020). This action can demonstrate Boeing adopting a deontological approach, arguably fulfilling their obligation to go 'beyond the delivery of training programs and training solutions' (Boeing,2020). By providing a higher quality of service shows a strong corporate reputation (Carmelia and Tishler,2005) which can help Boeing enter the dormant stage of the Issues Life Cycle (Hainsworth and Meng,1988).

 

Reference List

 

AP News (2019) Boeing 737 Max-Timeline. Available at: https://apnews.com/bfe75289cca3527d19d1df068b148740 (Accessed: 10^th February 2020)

 

Baker, S. (2008) ‘The model of the principled advocate and the pathological partisan: A virtue ethics construct of opposing archetypes of public relations and advertising practitioners’, Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 23(3), pp.235-253.

 

Boatright, J.R. (2000) ‘Globalization and the Ethics of Business’, Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(1), pp.1-6.

 

Boeing (2019) Boeing Statement on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Investigation Preliminary Report. Available at: https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2019-04-04-Boeing-Statement-On-Ethiopian-Airlines-Flight-302-Investigation-Preliminary-Report (Accessed: 10^th February 2020)

 

Boeing (2020) Our Company. Available at: https://www.boeing.com/company/ (Accessed: 10^th February 2020)

 

Boeing (2020) Code of Conduct. Available at: https://www.boeing.com/principles/ethics-and-compliance.page#/conduct  (Accessed: 10^th February 2020)

 

Boeing (2020) Boeing Customers. Available at: https://www.boeing.com/commercial/customers/ (Accessed: 10^th February 2020)

Boeing (2020) Training and Professional Services. Available at: https://www.boeing.com/commercial/services/training-and-resourcing/index.page (Accessed: 10^th February 2020)

 

Boeing (2020) Our Principles. Available at:https://www.boeing.com/principles/vision.page (Accessed: 10^thFebruary 2020)

 

Boeing (2020) Boeing Code of Conduct. Available at: https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/principles/ethics_and_compliance/pdf/english.pdf(Accessed: 10^th February 2020)

 

 

Browning, S. (2019) Boeing 737 Max: ‘I lost my family in the Ethiopian plane crash’. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48872395 (Accessed: 10^th February 2020)

 

Coombs, W.T. and Holladay, S.J. (2010) PR Strategy and Application: Managing Influence. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell

 

Coombs, W.T. (2014) ‘State of crisis communication: Evidence and the bleeding edge’, Research Journal of the Institute for Public Relations, 1(1), pp.1-12.

 

CIPR (2020) Membership Privacy Notice. Available at:https://cipr.co.uk/CIPR/Membership/Membership_Privacy_Notice.aspx Accessed: 10^th February 2020)

 

Federal Aviation Adminstration (2020) Pilot Training. Available at: https://www.faa.gov/pilots/training/(Accessed: 10^th February 2020)

 

He, H et al., (2012) ‘Social identify perspective on brand loyalty’, Journal of Business Research, 65, pp. 648 – 657.

 

Helmore, E. (2019) Profit over safety? Boeing under fire over 737 Max crashes as families demand answers .Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jun/17/boeing-737-max-ethiopian-airlines-crash(Accessed: 10^th February 2020)

 

Hoeffler, S and Keller, K.L. (2002) ‘Building brand equality through corporate societal marketing’, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 21 (1), pp. 78 – 89.

 

Kinderman, P et al., (1998) ‘Theory-of-mind delicts and casual attributions’, British Journal of Psychology, 89 (2), pp. 191 – 204. 

 

Kitroef,N. (2020) Boeing employees mocked F.A.A and ‘clowns’ who designed 737 Max. Available at:https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/business/boeing-737-messages.html (Accessed: 10^th February 2020)

 

Lieber, P.S. (2008) ‘Moral development in public relations: Measuring duty to society in strategic communication’, Public relations review, 34(3), pp.244-251.

 

Nicas, J. and Creswell,J. (2019) Boeing’s 737 Max: 1960s Design, 1990s Computing Power and Paper Manuals. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/business/boeing-737-max-.html (Accessed: 10^thFebruary 2020)

 

Nicas,J. et al., (2019) Boeing built deadly assumptions into 737 MAX, blind to a late design change. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/01/business/boeing-737-max-crash.html  (Accessed: 10^th February 2020)

 

Pasztor,A et al., (2020) Boeing backs MAX simulator training in reversal of stance. Available at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-recommends-fresh-max-simulator-training-11578423221

 (Accessed: 10^th February 2020)

 

Pratt, C.B. (1991) ‘Public relations: The empirical research on practitioner ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics, 10(3), pp.229-236.

Rushe,D. (2020) Boeing puts cost of 737 Max crashes at $19bn as it slumps to annual loss. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/29/boeing-puts-cost-of-737-max-crashes-at-19bn-as-it-slumps-to-annual-loss (Accessed: 10^th February 2020)

Schumann,P.L. (2001) ‘A moral principles framework of human resource management ethics’, Human Resource Management Review, 11, pp. 93 – 111.

 

Shepardson,D. (2019) Former Boeing employee who warned about 737 problems will testify at hearing. Available at: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-boeing-airplane/former-boeing-employee-who-warned-about-737-problems-will-testify-at-hearing-idUKKBN1YD2EW (Accessed: 10^th February 2020)

 

Slotnick,D. (2019) Boeing’s 737 officially lost the title of worl’s most popular airplane. Airbus’ compeitior just passed it in sales. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/airbus-beats-worlds-most-popular-plane-a320-737-2019-11?r=US&IR=T(Accessed: 10^th February 2020)

 

The Guardian (2020) Boeing now recommends 737 Max flight simulator training for pilots. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/07/boeing-737-max-flight-simulator-training (Accessed: 10^thFebruary 2020)

 

The Seattle Times (2019) Timeline: A brief history of the Boeing 737 Max. Available at: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/timeline-brief-history-boeing-737-max/ (Accessed: 10^th February 2020)

 

Titen Grey (2019) Boeing 737 MAX. Available at: https://titangrey.com/boeing-737-max/ (Accessed: 10^thFebruary 2020)

 

Whetstone, J.T. (2001) ‘How virtue fits within business ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics, 33(2), pp.101-114.

 

 

Appendix

 

Appendix A: Analysis of ethical issues for Boeing continued

 

It can be argued that Boeing did fail to meet the obligations and duties to abide by the FAA's Compliance Philosophy, which states the importance of providing the highest level of safety and regulatory compliance (Federal Aviation Administration, 2019). As customers of Boeing and regulators were not convinced that sufficient training was provided to pilots to operate the MCAS on the 737 MAX (Titan Grey,2019). The questioning regarding the insufficient training by stakeholders can demonstrate that Boeing's obligations and duties to embody the FAA's Compliance Philosophy (Federal Aviation Administration, 2019) was not present.

 

Appendix B: Implications of ethical issues for the PR and Communications team (continued)

 

Another implication the PR and Communications team may have encountered to maintain a professional manner is, that the code of ethics are too vague and do not give enough guidance (Browen et al.,2006). This can be explored through the CIPR Code of Conduct (2012) as a principle outlines the encouragement of professional training and development amongst members. Arguably, from the PR and Communications team, it can be said that they did meet this principle as they provided ‘level b’ training to pilots to operate the new system fixed into the 737 MAX (Broaderick,2020). However, the team may not have an understanding of the suitability of the level of training required for pilots to become familiar with the new system. If this was the case then it can be said that the team did behave in a virtuous manner as they abided by the CIPR Code of Conduct (2012) and acted in the best intentions for Boeing's stakeholder. It can be said that the vagueness of the principle of encouraging professional training (CIPR,2012) can remove the accountability that the practitioner has over the situation as the team followed the CIPR Code of Conduct (2012), demonstrating that Boeing does professionally conducts their business. 

 

It can be said that the implication for the PR and Communications team is not severe, as Doorley and Garcia (2011) argue that regulating professional associations do not have the autonomy, as their membership is optional to PR practitioners. Volunteer membership implies that there is no enforcement of abiding by codes of conduct (Doorley and Garcia,2011) even though professional associations such as the CIPR encourage abiding by codes due to professionalism (Moloney,2000). However, the level of severity to the PR and Communications team can be viewed as high, as the maximum penalty in which professional association such as the CIPR, can terminate a practitioners membership (CIPR,2015). This can raise implications for the practitioner as they can be perceived as untrustworthy due to the lack of credibility through the action of professional associations removing the membership the practitioner once had.

 

Seib and Fitpatrick (2006) emphasise the importance for the practitioner to have a duty to their employer, including being accountable for actions undertaken (Grunig,2014). However, the importance of being accountable to both the employer and client may have implications for the PR and Communication team. As the Boeing Code of Conduct (2020) outlines the importance of protecting the assets of the company, which can be the knowledge of defect parts built within the 737 MAX (Nicas et al.,2019), which can demonstrate the practitioner’s duty to the employer. However, their actions do not demonstrate the responsibility Boeing has for their clients (customers or shareholders) which goes against Boeing's vision of ‘practising the highest ethical standards and honouring our commitments’ (Boeing,2020). By not addressing the quality issues raised by employees (Shepardson,2019), it can be viewed as not showing their duty to their clients and not being accountable for their actions. Boeing's vision also emphasises the value of being accountable for the safety of its products and services (Boeing,2020), which can demonstrate that Boeing does have a duty to their clients. Yet, the alignment of their actions and their vision to have a duty to their clients arguably is not aligned as Boeing did not conduct a formal safety assessment of the new version of the MCAS (Nicas et al.,2019). This can show that the PR and Communications team does have a duty to their employer, however, internal conflicts with abiding by all the principles outlined by the organisation can challenge the decisions the team make. 

 

Another implication in which the PR and Communications team may have encountered is the emphasis of their duty to society, which practitioners view is important due to their role of being corporate conscious (Judd,1989). The importance of the practitioner's duty to society can be explored through their communication tactics, ideally, open two-way symmetrical communication should be implemented to demonstrate  'corporate ethical initiatives’ (Seitel,1989). This emphasises the practitioners' responsibility to society rather than their employer or client (Judd,1989). It can be said that Boeing did not act in accordance to their duty to society during the building of the 737 MAX, as they did not adopt a teleological approach to determine the implication of whether withholding the information regarding defective parts in the 737 MAX (Nicas et al.,2019) may have on society. However, after the crisis, it can be said that Boeing did demonstrate their duty to society as regular press releases from Boeing, relaying information regarding the Ethiopian Airline Fight 302 including software updates of the new MCAS and investigation reports were updated on their website (Boeing, 2019). It can be said by Boeing not demonstrating a duty to society may have contributed to the crisis the organisation encountered, which can highlight the importance of a duty-based practice to society.