BUSINESS ETHICS 300

ASSIGNMENT TWO
CASE STUDY

SOOPRAMANIEN JAYA
LUTCHMEE
16601334

PARVEZ NOORDAULLY
2481

Dean (1997, 1637) stipulates that ethics in business are meant to elucidate ethical
quandaries using certain principles and theories and guide decision making. Its
importance is emerging slowly as seen in the case of SFS (Specialty Fleet Services)
which even have an ethics review board. This essay highlights the ethical issues of the
case study titled World Class Bull, analyses them from the four perspectives namely
Utilitarian, Deontology, Liberal and virtue ethics. It is then followed by a reasonable
decision based on the analysis and concludes by examining what was done and how the
process could have been improved by reflecting on it.

Chris manipulative
scheme in landing
the contracts with
Dale thus breaching
the code of ethics
that is deceptive
business practices

ETHICAL
ISSUE

Jeremy's action of
sending a mail
disrecpecting the
customer and
encouraging
deceptive business
practices
breaching code of
ethics

The major ethical quandary in this particular case is the manipulative scheme of Chris,
member of the SFS sales team in landing a contract with a resilient client namely Dale,
CFO of Armadillo. The latters actions are seen as conspiratorial as at some point he lied
to the customer about the extent he knew on him and his company as well as on his
intentions. Sam, the Human Resources Vice President (VP) regarded his actions as a
breach in the code of ethics particularly under deceptive business practices. The
second issue concerns the unintentional and hasty act of Jeremy, the Sales VP which was
sending a mail to the entire sales team flattering the scheming plan of Chris and
ridiculing Dale and his wife. As seen above, there are two sides of this issue both being
unethical however impacting on different stakeholders. Firstly, it breaches the code of
ethics as Jeremy is seen as instigating the entire sales team in deceptive business
practices. Secondly it breaches the American universal code of conduct whereby
employees should respect all customers (Universal American Code of Conduct 2014).

Costs
Company's closure

benefits
short term benefits
before exposure

Utilitarianism means acting to maximize general utility in every situation so as to reach

a feasible conclusion (Riley 2009, 286) thus considered as a consequentialist action.
Following a cost benefit analysis for the first issue, Chris could be said to be acting on
behalf of SFS in order to maximize its sales and status through this prospective client.
Chris would also be maximizing welfare as several stakeholders would benefit from this
win-win situation. This is said as Chris can justify his actions by saying he is benefitting
both parties, that is Armadillo and SFS with the high quality service to be provided and
revenue generated. This is undeniably a form of rationalization, a symptom of
Teleopathy, the unbalanced pursuit of goals (Goodpaster 2004, 2). Moreover, the costs
related could outweigh the benefits since these actions are manipulative in nature. If
Dale finds out how he was being fooled, he could lead the firm to its demise if reputation
of deceptive practices precedes the company. This implies the loss of jobs of employees
as well as shareholders.
From the second ethical issue, it can be derived that the benefits are non-existent which
means it doesnt benefit at all any of the stakeholders. Indeed there are different
consequences to each of the side of this issue as mentioned above which need to be
highlighted. Firstly, Jeremy rendered public the scheme of how Chris made a fool out of
Dale and his wife which conflicts with both the code of ethics and universal code of
conduct as well. In the case where Dale finds out about this mail, which is highly
probable, this could lead to defamation of SFS through the disrespect of clients. This
might lead SFS to its ruin thus the unemployment of all employees since Dale can sue
SFS using the Americas universal code of conduct stipulating a fair dealing with
customers prohibiting manipulation (Universal American Code of Conduct 2014).
Secondly, the disclosure of Chris practice would mean inspiring the team into deceptive
practices. This also breaches the code of ethics whereby deceptive business practices
are encouraged. By doing so, Jeremy is unintentionally contradicting the utilitarian
theory as it is not benefitting any stakeholders. In fact, SFS would only enjoy the
revenue from the Armadillo contract on a short term basis before its exposure.

Fixation
Duty
towards
SFSProfitability

Chris

Non Consequentialist

Loyalty
towards
companys
prosperity

Total ordering of values

Parochialism

Gaus (2001, 32) explains Deontology as prioritizing what is believed to be right over the
consequences of a good action, thus categorized as a non-consequentialist theory. In the
first ethical issue, it can be seen that Chris prioritize his duty towards himself on
attaining the goal set no matter what over his duty towards the organization, especially
towards the ethics department. This also shows how fixated he is on pursuing his goal
whereby he is unable to see the consequences of his actions. He believes his duty is to
get Dale interested irrespective of the other persons perspective which relates to
parochialism. Parochialism is the term given to someone with a narrow viewpoint
without a global perspective and valuing ones own interests also implying the total
ordering of values (Tomaney 2013, 659). In this case, Chris is not valuing the
organization ethical stance according to the code of ethics which also shows his
detachment to the latter (Goodpaster 2004, 1). Furthermore, Chris loyalty lied towards
the companys profitability more than to its values (Corvino 2002, 180). This is so as it
is clear how far he can go for the organizations prosperity.
The second ethical quandary would be Jeremys non consequentialist stance while
sending the mail. This conflicted with the values he himself founded when constructing
SFS code of ethics at the very start. His duty towards recognizing Chris outstanding
work conflicted with the company values which should have been his priority relating
to the scandal he went through several years back. However he believed he was doing
the right thing and his personal judgment guided his decision to send the mail. He only
realized his unethical behavior when Sam, the seeing talking practitioner went to
discuss with the latter on his actions. He can be said to not seeing the ethical dimension
of his acts as realization was made only after Sam pointed it out which is a form of moral
myopia ((Drumwright and Murphy 2004, 7). He is also considered as an outward
patriotism as he was prone to the partial ordering of his values with a mixture of his
own set of values, the companys values and Chris values as well. This is a form of nonparochialism where Jeremy used the plurality of reason, which is the consideration of
many ethical stances before or during sending the mail.

Hursthouse Aristotelian defines Virtue ethics as being eudemonistic, implying

individuals should have those traits so as to live well their life since she believes an
ethical life enhances an individuals well-being (Conti 2012, 17). It is simply asking
oneself how our actions represent the person we are. It comprises of our beliefs,
manners, culture and personal judgments. In this case, Chris virtue is indeed
questionable as his moral character is seen as manipulative thus devious. He also
seemed detached from the universal values especially respect and integrity which
reveals his immoral nature. He also perceives ethics as relative since he assumes his
deceptive actions are accepted in the environment he is working being very competitive
and based on persuasive and manipulative skills (West 2009, 113). In addition, since the
case is happening in an American society, his actions could be justified as the
individualistic culture of Americans thus a form of rationalization, symptom of
Teleopathy. In addition, Chris can be said to have no moral sensitivity due to his
ignorance on the impact of his deceptive practices on others. Moral sensitivity can be
defined to ones awareness on how ones actions impact on others (Hill 2004, 142).

Companys status

Veil of ignorance

Conflicting values
and priorities

Jeremy

Companys ethical
Values

Detachment
Moral Myopia

Virtue ethics looks at the moral character carrying out the action rather than duties as
stipulated above. Jeremys virtue is as questioning as Chris since he is also prioritising
the companys status over its ethical values which reflect a form of detachment
(Goodpaster 2004, 2). As mentioned in the case, Jeremy went through a scandal which
pushed him to incorporate a clear code of ethics. This information from his past and his
present behaviour clearly shows that his values are immoral by nature. If someone has
the habit of unethical practices, it is rational to think that it is in the latters nature to do
so. His actions reveal his true values which go against honesty and integrity. He is also
not abiding by universal values such as respect towards others. Jeremy is so fixated on
the success of Chris that he is unintentionally ignoring the code of ethics stipulating the
prohibition of deceptive business practices which could also be seen as a form of moral
myopia due to the distortion of his moral vision (Drumwright and Murphy 2004, 7). In
addition, he can be said to have acted under the veil of ignorance due to the fact that he
didnt realize the wrongness in his behavior until Sam pointed it out (Ralston 2000, 51).

Selick (2009) believes Libertarianism refers to the freedom of choice and it is highly
influenced by the free market. Here, Chris is said to have freedom of choosing his tactics
due to the broad term of deceptive business practices since it wasnt specified that it
was prohibited to deliberately not mention for which company you are working for or
no intentional surveillance of companies. Since it is a free market, Chris believed he was
free to act on a competitive basis even if freedom doesnt always mean fairness
(Johnson 1994, 16). He was also free to decide whether his strategies were to be
rendered public or not which wasnt the case. Jeremy didnt consult Chris before
sending the mail as if someone was to be blame, it would be Chris who fooled the client
not Jeremy. He is also free to choose what he thinks is right and in this case, it is clear
that he refers to ethics as relative whereby those tactics are permitted in sales and
service industry for the common good of the company. Chris is indeed loyal firstly to the
companys prosperity which bypasses its ethical values thus a form of misplaced loyalty.
Misplaced loyalty traditionally means being blindfolded in acting for the companys
welfare whereby one ignores the wrongness of the actions in doing so (Ramsay 1994).
Conversely, the case of Jeremy would be different from Chris. Jeremy didnt have the
freedom to send the mail and encourage the deceptive business practices due to him
being the one to create the code of ethics prior to the scandal he went through in the
past. Jeremy was free to congratulate Chris personally and discretely but sending the
mail was not an act he was totally free of doing. This act was guided by the Universal
American Code of Conduct and SFS Code of Ethics which could lead to defamation of the
company. This is also considered as a form of misplaced loyalty since he valued too
much the companys prosperity like Chris. Indeed he acted as a non-consequentialist
such that being the sales Vice President; he didnt analyze the impact of his particular
doing on others and mainly the company. Furthermore, Sam was free to report directly
Jeremy thus whistleblowing which she didnt do as she applied the seeing talking
practitioner first. Sam would have been a whistleblower in this case if she had just
reported Jeremys actions directly as a professional misconduct or negligence (Ray
2006, 439).
In the light of the present discussion, the two ethical quandaries would have to lead to
two different decisions since the actions of Jeremy and Chris cannot be compared.
Firstly, based on the utilitarian and libertarian stance, I would reprimand Chris as
Jeremys email made it necessary to do so. He would also have to go apologize to Dale
and his wife publicly for his intrusion in their lives and lying on his intentions. This
would be done for the greater good as if Dale sees the mail, he might launch a vendetta
against SFS which would lead the company to its ruin thus the unemployment of both
shareholders and employees. The companys polices are quite broad as mentioned
above which could be ignored but I am free to choose to make him rectify his mistakes
and make clear that SFS is not aligned to those unethical and manipulative tactics thus
applying the libertarian perspective.

Secondly, Jeremy should also be reprimanded due to his nonsensical actions while being
the Sales Vice President and founder of the code of ethics. This is based on a
deontological and virtue ethics perspective since duty towards the companys values
prioritizes over its profitability. This would be based on my virtue ethics that is moral
character which also comprises of universal values such as respect towards one
another, integrity and honesty. It would be fair to make the people involved in the
unethical endeavors suffer the consequences of their actions rather than having a clean
bill of health and make the company support thus being part of the unethical practices.
I believe this would be seen as courageous to Dale and his wife and there is high
probability the contract is safe even if reprimanding wouldnt be to convince Dale of
working with SFS but the right thing to do.
Reflecting on my decision, I made it mostly based on utilitarianism as there would be no
benefit in giving them a clean bill of health. There would only be costs of closure of SFS
which is better to prevent for the greater good. I also think its my duty towards myself
to do the right thing and reprimand such deceitful acts. I eventually recognised the main
stakeholders involved in the wrongdoings which was Chris and Jeremy. After long
discussions with friends and peers before and during the assignment, I was able to
clarify my doubts on who is right or not. I believe I reasoned well since it seemed the
right thing to do and it was easy as no benefit would be derived if Id make a different
decision. To some extent, Chris might have been right since the industry he is working
encourages persuasion and sometimes doesnt draw a line between being ethical and
unethical. He could have changed his approach like for instance not intruding in their
personal lives. He could have approached them professionally and acted indifferent on
Dale which would lead to the same outcome. Then this whole issue would not have been
unethical except if Jeremy sends an email again describing how Dale was fooled. I could
have improved by having more of a marketing stance rather than human resources
perspective but it is very difficult since my values dont permit me to disrespect
someone and encourage manipulative strategies. I believe individuals shouldnt be
treated as a means to an end.

REFERENCES
Conti Amy Irene, 2012. DIRTY HANDS, VIRTUE ETHICS AND CONSEQUENTIALISM.
Masters Thesis, California State University.
Corvino, John 2002. Loyalty in Business? Journal of Business Ethics 49(1/2): 179-185
http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/198062496?accoun
tid=10382
Dean, Peter J. 1997. Examining the profession and the practice of business ethics
Journal of Business Ethics 16(5): 1637-1649.
http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/198189120?accoun
tid=10382
Drumwright, Minette E. and Murphy, Patrick E. 2004. HOW ADVERTISING
PRACTITIONERS VIEW ETHICS: Moral Muteness, Moral Myopia, and Moral
Imagination Journal of Advertising 33(2): 7-24
http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/236502992?accoun
tid=10382
Gaus, Gerald F. 2001. What is Deontology? Part one: Orthodox views Journal of Value
Enquiry 35(1): 27-42
http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/203937789?accoun
tid=10382
Goodpaster, Kenneth E. 2004. Ethics or excellence? Conscience as a check on the
unbalanced pursuit of organizational goals. Ivey Business Journal Online
http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/216188358?accoun
Johnson, Charles P. 1994. A free market view of business ethics SuperVision 55(5):1417
http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/195590647?accoun
tid=10382
Hill, Adams L. 2004. Ethical Analysis in Counseling: A Case for Narrative Ethics, Moral
Visions, and Virtue Ethics Counseling and Values 48(2):131-148
http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/207579900?accoun
tid=10382
Ralston Steven M. 2000. The "veil of ignorance": Exploring ethical issues in the
employment interview. Business Communication Quarterly. 63(1):50-52
http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/236864384?accoun
tid=10382
Ramsay. Laura. 1994. Misplaced loyalty bad for company, employee: [Weekly Edition]
Financial Post, April 30

Ray, Susan L. 2006. Whistleblowing and Organizational Ethics Nursing Ethics 13(4):
438-445
http://dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1191/0969733006ne882oa
Riley, Jonathan. 2009. THE INTERPRETATION OF MAXIMIZING UTILITARIANISM
Social Philosophy & Policy 16(1): 286-325
http://dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1017/S0265052509090128
Selick, Karen. 2009. Libertarianism in a nutshell The National Post, April 7
Tomaney, John. 2013. Parochialism- a defense Progress in Human Geography 37(5):
658-672
http://dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1177/0309132512471235
Universal American Code of Conduct. 2014. Code of Conduct
http://www.universalamerican.com/SharedPDFs/uacorp/2015/UAM_CodeOfCo
nduct.pdf
West, Andrew. 2009. Corporate governance convergence and moral relativism
Corporate Governance: An international review 17(1): 107-119
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8683.2008.00722.x