1. CASE 4
CISCO: Are Tech Firms Responsible
for the Misuse of Their Products?
Estampador
Fajardo
Kim

2. Facts of the Case
• The lawsuit was filed under the 1789 Alien Tort Law, which
allows foreign nationals redress in US courts for human
rights abuses.
• In a decision carefully followed by the tech sector and
human rights activists, a US court cleared Cisco Systems of
any wrong doing for human rights abuses in China.
• The Maryland court found that Cisco’s technology
remained a neutral product with numerous legitimate uses,
and did not find evidence that Cisco tailored the technology
to facilitate the human rights abuses alleged.

3. Facts of the Case
• Cisco’s General Counsel responded to the
decision claiming that both Congress and the
Commerce Department permit the sale of the
technology in question, and that the
technology has “helped billions of people
around the world to access information.”

4. Ethical Issues
• Cisco was claimed liable for Beijing’s use of
Cisco’s networking technology to find, arrest,
and torture political activists.
• Chinese plaintiffs argued that not only did the
technology facilitate the abuses, but Cisco also
“actively customized, marketed, and provided
support for its monitoring and censorship
technologies.”

5. Identify Stakeholders
• The company (CISCO) and its executives. The
company who created and pushed for the use
of Cisco’s networking technology. Cisco’s stake
in this case is their future employees who are
the workforce of the company involved in
customizing ang manufacturing the said
network technology equipment.

6. Identify Stakeholders
• Chinese customers and plaintiffs claiming
about Cisco’s unethical procedures.
• Cisco’s legal counsel involved in responding
per the decision in the case

7. Consider the Alternatives
1.)Promote better consciousness on the part of
business and society more broadly, of
violations committed abroad due to increased
media coverage and access, and identification
of company complicity in the courts.

8. Consider the Alternatives
2.) Increased awareness on the part of business
and society more broadly, that companies are
expected to "make sure that they are not
complicit in human rights abuses"

9. Consider the Alternatives
3.) Continue legal sales of the product in that
country despite the danger that the product
may be used to commit human rights
violations
4.) Refuse to do business in that country, and so
forgo the revenues that would have been
generated through the legal sale of its
products there

10. How the Decision Affects the
Stakeholders
• The decision will affect the stakeholders
through the business process that the
company currently has. The success of the
decision made will be determined the by the
appropriateness of the goals that the
organization has pursued with regards to the
initial goals and objectives established by the
company.

11. Decision
The group has decided to go for the first
alternative which is to promote better
consciousness on the part of business and
society more broadly, of violations committed
abroad due to increased media coverage and
access, and identification of company
complicity in the courts.

12. Outcomes
• Multi national companies such as CISCO, are
facing the world of globalization in today’s
society. This means that their goods are being
sold into an ever-wider spectrum of countries
which brings forth challenges for the
stakeholders as well as fostering the link
between how these products are used by
third parties – and the company itself.