1

Business, Government and Society

Case Study 7

Lumber Liquidators’ Laminate Flooring

Submitted by: Corey Smith.

Date: 21st June 2020.

 2

Since consumers don’t always think about the safety of floors rather they just pay attention to the

apparent quality and price, it falls on the government to have the appropriate regulations in place so as

to ensure that the consumers are protected. In the case of Lumber Liquidators, the relevant tests that

were down clearly showed the high levels of formaldehyde that was found in the flooring of the

company and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) itself demonstrated its concern regarding the

health repercussions of living and breathing in such harmful chemicals and said that the short term side

effects include irritation in the eyes, throat and skin whereas in the long run it was suspected to be

carcinogen-which means that if breathed in for too long it could be cancerous for the individual. Even

after such intense findings, EPA only succeeded in drafting a resolution regarding the regulation of

formaldehyde in products and never got around to officially getting the resolution passed and

implemented in the production practices. Even the consumer product safety commission had no rules

for formaldehyde. Only the state of California was successful in independently setting their own

standards of formaldehyde known as the California Air Resources Board (CARB) so as to regulate the

amount of formaldehyde being used in the wood products that we were being produced in the state.

This shows that such an official setting of standard was possible for the government to publish at large

so that the appropriate regulations could be made nation-wide. The government should also have

passed the drafted regulation and gotten it approved to protect the safety of consumers from such

harmful products. In line with the core value of responsible stewardship of Saint Leo, it is also the

responsibility of the business owners to produce products that are safe for consumption and optimize

resources. (Lawrence & Webber, 2015.)

One of the biggest outcomes of consumer activists filing lawsuits against Lumber Liquidators will bring

about is that of awareness. Consumers are mostly not educated about the hazards that exist when

buying floors that have not been certified to be of safe use. In most cases, the safety of the floors is

never a factor that is taken into consideration by the people buying floors which is what would be
 3

changed if consumer activists file these lawsuits. Moreover, change on the practices of Lumber

Liquidators is likely to come as a result of this only. Since the awareness would be spreading amongst

the consumers, the target market of Lumber Liquidators would be at risk. As a threat of a decline in their

sales would be a matter of their commercial interest they will make sure to make their process of

making their floors more transparent to prove to the public and their consumers how their floors are

either not harmful or they will make the effort to change their practices so as to make sure that their

market share does not decline. Other firms will also be alerted and will hence improve their own floor

making practices because the public will then actually question the safety and hazards of flooring that

they previously did not consider. In lawsuits, if found guilty firms are entitled to pay a certain amount of

money in damages which is in most cases an exorbitant amount of money that these firms are likely to

not want to spend and rather alter their practices to maintain their consumers and also not have their

brand name dragged through court (Lawrence & Webber, 2015.)

4