Reference no: EM131276447

Discussion: Ethics in Practice

1.1- Discussion: Ethical Issues

Currently, what are the major ethical issues of our society? Have these issues changed throughout the years? If so, how?

1.2 - Discussion: Ethics in Practice

For the situation below, determine the facts and assumptions, the major overriding issues or problems, sub-issues and related issues that may need consideration, the stakeholders, do a CSR analysis, an evaluation and a recommendation. Then answer the questions to this situation based on this analysis. Interact with other students by responding to their postings

Facts:

Hewlett-Packard has had an abundant leaks, Chairwoman Patricia Dunn resigned from company, outside investigators hired, and phone records of board members and certain reporters were obtained via pretexting.

Assumptions:

Someone on the inside is responsible for the leaks.

Major Issues, Sub-issues, and the Stakeholders:

The major overriding issues in this situation is figuring out who is responsible for the leaks. Most likely, anyone from within the company could also be responsible.

The sub issues and related issues in this situation is the finding a team of lawful investigators that will be able to find the leak without breaking the law.

The stakeholders that are affected by these leaks are all the company's employees, private and public investors.

CSR Analysis

ECONOMIC: This leak could harm HP's revenue and representation. Also, bringing the employees down.

LEGAL: HP must protect its business from competitors. It is the legal responsibility of HP to ensure that all SSI within the company remain so, in order to protect the patents and trademarks within the company from rival organizations. The employees must also be protected from the downfall of the one whom leaked the source.

EHICAL: The HP company must conduct an investigation that doesn't cause conflict of interest. The investigation should be done by private investigators who won't obstruct the law in any shape or form.

PHILANTHROPIC: Not Applicable.

Recommendations

I would recommend two investigations by two different investigating companies to make sure that the problem was solved accurately and will never arise.

Questions

1. Who should be responsible for taking action when a board member engages in problematic behavior?

2. If the chairperson is responsible, when should he or she involve the whole board?

3. The law regarding pretexting is unclear. While it is illegal when used to obtain financial records, the use of pretexting in other situations - such as the phone records example - was not necessarily against the law. Should it be?

4. How might things have evolved differently if the ethicality rather than the legality of the practice had been issued? Are the two synonymous or is there a difference?

Discussion

Following the approach indicated in Figure 6 -1 on page 150, identify a new issue category not listed in Figure 6-1. Identify several examples of "crises" that have occurred in the business world recent years under the new issue category.

1.3 - Discussion: Ethics in Practice

Directions: For the situation below, determine the facts and assumptions, the major overriding issues or problems, sub-issues and related issues that may need consideration, the stakeholders, do a CSR analysis, an evaluation and a recommendation. Then answer the questions to this situation based on this analysis. Interact with other students by responding to their postings.

Ethics in Practice Discussion. - Bosses Watching Employees: Are You Safe on Social Networking Sites? p. 283.

Facts

· Social media was used as a public outlet for two employees who complained about managers and customers of a business.
· The employees were fired.
· Lawyers believe the statements may have been made legally due to New Jersey's vague laws concerning blogging or social networking.
Assumptions

· Employees should be protected under their 1st and 4th amendment rights.

· The company did not need a reason to terminate the employees as New Jersey did not have laws protecting non-union workers.

· The employees were likely found to be violating New Jersey's "Defamation Law".

Problems

· Comments placed on social media are permanent additions to a public board, unless the person's privacy settings disallow it.

o Comments are made public when posted to public message boards.

· Publicly posted comments can be considered "libel" and used as part of a civil defamation suit under N.J. law.

Stakeholders

· The terminated employees.
· The company.
· NJ Sate Judicial System.
· Lawyers.
· Customers of the company.
· Managers within the company.
· All workers in the state of NJ.

Questions

1. Do employees have a right to free speech while not at work? Do they have a right to not be monitored by their employers when they are "off the job"? Is this an ethical issue as well as a legal issue?

2. Should employees have the right to criticize their employer and managers on a social networking site? Are they violating any ethical duties they owe their employers?

3. Assuming the managers came across an incident such as that described, what actions, if any, should they take? What ethical principles should guide their actions?

1.4 - Discussion: Ethics in Practice

Participate in the Module: Ethics in Practice Discussion. - Should Toy Giveaways Be Banned? Who is Responsible for Children's Health? p. 409.

In a dramatic decision, the Santa Clara County, California, Board of Supervisors passed a new ordinance that will ban Happy Meal' toys and other promotional giveaways that restaurants use to promote their high-calorie meals to children. The officials are convinced that luring kids into eating foods with high sugar, sodium, and fat by using toys as inducements will make them overweight and cause long-term health problems. The only escape from this ban will be if the restaurants can meet newly created nutritional guidelines approved by the board. The board voted 3 to 2 in favor of the ban after a contentious meeting that included testimony on both sides of the issue.

One of the board supervisors was quoted as saying, "This ordinance prevents restaurants from preying on children's love of toys" to sell high-calorie, unhealthful food. He went on to argue that "this ordinance breaks the link between unhealthy food and prizes." Also in favor of the ordinance were public health administrators, parents, and doctors. Opposition included fast-food franchisees, other parents, and supporters of fast-food toys who said the promotions are frequently used to provide Christmas presents for poor children.

One physician who sees obese children on a daily basis argued that the toys are a powerful draw for children who then convince their parents to take them to the fast-food restaurants. This doctor said that parents tell them they take their children to the restaurants because of the toy giveaways. He mentioned that he has a five-year-old patient who already has type-2 diabetes.

On the other side of the issue was an owner of seven McDonald's restaurants. He argued that he and his wife work very diligently to promote healthy lifestyles for children and that they have donated to children's sports and other activities, and recently received an award for community service from the parent company.

The board agreed to postpone the implementation of the new law for 90 days to give the fast-food industry time to initiate its own voluntary program for improving the nutritional value of children's meals.

Questions

1. Who is responsible for children's health with respect to fast food? Did the board of supervisors overstep its boundaries?

2. Does this legislation block free choice for consumers?

3. What is the ethical course of action for fast-food restaurants to take in light of the childhood obesity issue and other health concerns?