Business_Ethics_Situational_Essay

I work for a company that is at a crossroads. There are old oil barrels buried beneath the company offices. The barrels are in danger of being a hazard to the environment and the community nearby. In the years since the burial of the barrels, the company has erected a four story building on top of the ground where the barrels sit. So to clean up the land it will require the destruction of the building. Although the company desires to do the right thing, there are many factors stopping them. The biggest issue stopping the company is money. The company lacks the funds that it would take to enact the clean-up process. The CEO has decided to wait two years before she gives the go ahead to start the clean-up process. This will give the company the time it needs to accrue the funds necessary to finance the clean-up effort. As the Vice President of Research and Development and Safety, I am uncomfortable with waiting two years. I don’t think that is the proper decision. I have spent time considering all of my options I have decided that I basically have two choices since the CEO will not change her mind. First, I can quit and keep quiet, or second, keep my job but whistle-blow to the proper people. Regardless of the choice I make, there are a myriad of factors that I have to consider, and either choice presents multiple consequences. The factors and consequences of my choice will help me to take the right steps and make the decision that I feel is best for me and everyone else. One thing I need to consider is the factual evidence we have right now. First off, we don’t know that the barrels are leaking. It is strongly believed that they are, but this isn’t a sure thing. There was no mention of tests being done to verify that there is leaking sludge coming from the barrels. With this level of uncertainty, if I go blow the whistle on my boss and friend, it could blow up in my face and end up being little more than nothing. Then I have lost a friend and likely a job. Mathieu Bouville presents an idea which states, “When someone successfully prevents a catastrophe, we may call him a hero and envy him…On the other hand, we do not envy an employee who lost his job for blowing the whistle on a product that turned out to be perfectly safe. Instead, we pity him. Pity is paradoxical because it requires that the employee did something right (otherwise we would blame not pity) and that we do not want to be in such a situation, otherwise we would envy not pity. Even if in theory one might consider that the unlucky whistle blower made the right decision, in practice one would not want to make this kind of right decision.”1 Second, this is privileged information. Is it ethical to disclose private company information when I have been instructed by company management not too' Do I have a duty to the company to keep quiet because I am an employee' Are there any other alternatives' Because of the volatility of the oil prices, the impossibility of a stock offering, and the option of government funding to aid in the clean-up effort not being likely, the company literally just doesn’t have the money to fix the issue. However, whether the issue is resolved or not, many people will be affected either way. Who will be affected by my actions' If I stay quiet I am putting potentially hundreds of people in and around the Navajo reservation at risk. Also the many residents of Vernal could be in some danger. However, if I blow the whistle I am affecting all the employees, the board of directors, the CEO, and even myself. Another stakeholder I must consider, if I blow the whistle, is the customers of the business. One of the things that has become very prevalent in today’s business world is the desire to work with companies that are eco-friendly. So if we are selling oil and other chemicals to companies, and they discover our lack of environmental responsibility, they might take their business elsewhere. Likewise if we sell our products directly to end customers, I believe this lack of action will work as a negative against us in their eyes too. Another thing that’s not even related to my business, but could definitely be affected is the local housing market. I have to consider that if this information of potential environmental danger is made public, then the values of homes in the community could decrease. People who are moving to Vernal from outside the town could look for residence elsewhere because of the dangers. Does it cause others who currently live in the community to move away' If this happens then it can have an effect on local businesses. It can affect the money paid to the government in all different forms of taxes. So there are definitely more factors to consider then just a business based perspective. This problem truly has the potential to affect everyone. As I consider my options, there are different ethical theories that can shed light on the situation. One theory to consider is the utility theory. The utility theory basically says, if consequences of the action are good, then the action or decision itself is good. Likewise if the consequences of the action are bad, then the action or decision is bad. Positives to this theory are that ideally we should make the choice that presents the greatest good for the largest number of people. We should always act to produce the more good outcomes than bad outcomes for everyone. This viewpoint forces the decision maker to think about the general welfare of everyone and proposes a standard outside of self-interest to judge the value of the course of action. In essence, the decision maker should think objectively and perform the action that creates the most good. However, the utility perspective allows for latitude in decision making that does not recognize specific actions as good or bad, but allows the decision maker to fit personal decisions into the complexities of the situation. A person who thinks in the utility perspective thinks in terms of the stakeholder. However, negatives of the utility viewpoint are a few; such as, it ignores actions that are inherently wrong. Also the utility theory focuses on the consequences of an action; however the decision or action itself may be ignored. I think the utility principle is a principle of justification.2 Basically the principle can be summed up in the old saying, “The ends justify the means.” The mere increase in good is not good in and of itself because it violates other people’s rights. So how does this relate to my current situation' This view point can be helpful in my decision making process. If I consider all the people likely to be affected if the barrels are leaking oil, then I have to blow the whistle. However, I think the CEO could actually be employing this perspective right now too. She may have decided that more good comes from putting off the clean-up. Potentially hundreds of employees keep working, we continue to supply customers which could number the thousands, the company continues making money, the local economy remains strong, etc. And these are valid points that the CEO would have. What happens if we have to shut down all of our operations for the clean-up' Are less people affected by delaying the clean-up than if she goes through it now' As mentioned before, the utility principle allows for justification of actions, and I believe the CEO is doing just that. I think this view point is good if employed properly, but the position can also bring about a lot of negative actions too. Immanuel Kant proposed another principle of ethics which is a duty-based principle. This principle, called the categorical imperative, introduced by Kant, basically reasons that we should act ethically because of a sense of duty that comes from reasoning or just our natural nature. It is an internal source that causes us to act ethically. There are three formulations, or points, that make-up this duty-based principle. First, you should act only on rules that you would be willing to see everyone follow. Simply put, no one is better than anyone else. We all should be expected to follow the same rule. There should be no special or preferential treatment. Second, you should act to treat humanity as an end and never as merely a mean (respect for person’s principle). How our actions affect people should be our main concern. Everything you do should be done with the humanity as the focus. If it affects people positively, then it is an acceptable action. If people are affected negatively then, the opposite holds true, it is an unacceptable action. We shouldn’t be focused on just the bottom line. Lastly, Kant states that every rational person is able to think of themself as a maker of the universal law. We don’t need an external authority, such as God or the government, to determine the nature of moral law.3 I think the categorical imperative proposed by Kant is best summed up by the Golden Rule that many children are taught when they are young. “Do unto others as you’d have done unto you.” Now I have to think how the categorical imperative is applicable to my current situation. As I think about these ideas proposed by Kant, I think my ideals a line more with these principles. I don’t view the people in the local community as just a means to the end. Although I understand that making money is very important to a business, there is a real danger of hurting people if I remain quiet. If I lived in a community that was in some danger caused by a local company, I would hope they would disclose that information to me, and I would be furious if I found out they had information regarding the potential danger years before they decided to address the issue. According to Kant, if I expect companies to be transparent and honest with me, then I have to be honest even if my company doesn’t want to be. I believe Kant’s theory supports blowing the whistle on the company. The political philosopher, John Rawls, created the Principle of Justice. His version of ethical due process is a comprehensive principle of justice. Rawls thought that all persons have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with similar liberties for all others. Basically this says that all people are to be treated equally and any one person should be able to enjoy all the same basic liberties as everyone else. John Rawls also felt that social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage and attached to positions and offices open to all. An interesting idea that Rawls had was the “veil of ignorance.” Rawls was intrigued with the idea of gathering people that were unaware of their personal station in society, whether they are poor, rich, talented etc. He would ask the people what they desired out of society and the type of society they would build. Rawls hypothesized that the rule everyone would be willing to agree on would be that they should raise as high as possible the social and economic well-being of society’s worst-off individuals. Rawls believed this would be done partially out of fear because no one would want to be on the bottom.4 I think a fitting phrase for this thought process is, “What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.” As I’m contemplating the choice I have to make, I think it is very important to think of what my actions would be if I was directly affected by the dangers posed to the environment and the local community. Similarly as with my thoughts concerning Kant’s principle, I must consider, would I be ok with ignoring the potentially contaminated ground if I lived in the local community' If the circumstance would be an issue for me if I was a member of the nearby Navajo or Vernal communities, then it should be an issue period. If everyone is to be treated equally and have the same basic liberties, then everyone must have access to the same information. If this is the case, again I think a case has been made for whistle blowing. If whistle blowing is indeed my only option, I must be ethical on my end so that I don’t lose credibility. I believe the people I should go to first are the board of directors. That way we have the opportunity to fix the problem inside of the organization before going outside the company to get action. According to Kirk Hanson, the executive director at the Ethics Center, when whistle blowing, “The first thing a potential leaker should ask is the status of the information itself. Is the information “classified,” “proprietary,” or otherwise “protected'” Is there a system in place which clearly considers this information restricted' If the information is clearly intended to be protected, then the leaker must meet a stiff test if he or she wants to leak it. The second consideration is whether the potential leaker has a specific obligation, legal or ethical, to protect the information, or has the information only because another person violated his or her obligation to keep it secret. If so, then it is a much more serious matter to reveal it. The third consideration is whether the information is about public or private matters. Information about another’s sexual orientation, about his or her private finances, or about personal phone calls has more of a claim to privacy than information about a person’s actions as a corporate executive or a government official. The difficult cases, of course, are those where the private life of individuals arguably influences their public actions.”5 One of the advantages to whistle blowing I keep coming back to is something we learned when discussing crisis management. The attitude of “Be first, be right, and be credible” is important here. If I decide to whistle blow, I will be starting with the board of directors. This will make them aware of the current situation and they will have the opportunity to address the situation. Obviously this isn’t information that has gone out to the masses. The media doesn’t know anything either. If the board of directors overrides the CEO and instructs for the clean-up process to begin, then I think this gives us the opportunity to make sure we are the first to get the information out there. I think this will prove to the local community and media that we are a company that has integrity and is willing to do the right thing regardless of the cost. We have a great example of the value of being open and honest to our customers. Schwan’s ice cream had a salmonella outbreak with their ice cream products. Schwan’s placed consumer safety as its number one priority. Although they lost money in stopping production of the contaminated ice cream and paying out healthcare bills and minimal court costs, showing their dedication to the health and safety of their customers was a huge positive. Schwan’s planning, quick response, and customer-oriented strategy helped Schwan’s retain customer loyalty and minimized legal exposure.6 Schwan’s is the ideal example for us in our scenario. If we are open and honest with the public, if we communicate with them properly, and if we do the right thing this will become an advantage for us. The question I have to ask myself is, can I live with myself if I say nothing' Can I walk away and not worry about the potential danger to the people involved' My answer is no. If I was truly in a situation where the health and well-being of others was in jeopardy, I could not walk away. No matter the consequences. I can only imagine how my conscience would feel if I was able to walk away knowing of the potential dangers I was leaving behind. I read something on the internet about a man who was testifying in court about the inappropriate actions of his former company. He was asked by his boss to pour toxic materials down a sewer drain. I guess a number of years had passed since that time and the man was no longer with the company. The judge asked the man why he was coming forward now. The man’s reply was that when he was fishing with his son, he realized that what he poured down the drain could have ruined the environment and taken away the opportunity to fish with his son. I can only imagine how horrible I’d feel if a child was hurt due to my inaction. I believe whistle blowing is the right thing to do. Works Cited 1. Bouville, Mathieu. "Whistle-blowing and morality." Journal of Business Ethics. (2007): 1-12. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. . 2. Carroll, A. B., and A. K. Buchholtz. Business and society, ethics and stakeholder management. South-Western Pub, 2009. Print. 3. Carroll, A. B., and A. K. Buchholtz. Business and society, ethics and stakeholder management. South-Western Pub, 2009. Print. 4. Carroll, A. B., and A. K. Buchholtz. Business and society, ethics and stakeholder management. South-Western Pub, 2009. Print. 5. Nadler, Judy. "Whistle Blowing in the Public Sector." . Santa Clara University, n.d. Web. 14 Mar 2013.

上一篇：Business_Research_Methods_Part 下一篇：Blade_Runner_and_Frankenstein