MBA and Social Work
mkeont
ethical_thinking_presentation_1.pptxEthical thinking presentation
Rebecca Frango
U5D1
November 12, 2015
1
Introduction
John Pepper discovered dishonesty in his contractors
Contractors were terminated immediately
Reported incident to Unilever
Cost Proctor and Gamble 20 million (Hooker, 2011)
Was this a case of corporate espionage?
Let’s review the case using the generalization test, utilitarian test, and virtue ethics
2
This is a case study in Business Ethics as Rational Choice. (Hooker, 2011). In the case study 4.1 John Pepper the CEO of Proctor and Gamble (P&G) found out that his contractors were taking things from their competitor Unilever’s trash to gain access to additional information on products, the contractors were immediately let go and Pepper reported and returned everything to Unilever who demanded a settlement costing P&G 20 million in damages.
2
Generalization test
“A rational choice must be generalizable.” (Hooker, 2011)
“ If I have a reason for my action, then the reason justifies the action for me.” (Hooker, 2011)
It was determined the contractors stole the information to make money.
For this the generalization was a fail.
3
This was a complete fail for the contractors as they were terminated immediately, for P&G as they had to pay 20 million to Unilever as demanded for damages. Lesson learned for Unilever though is that they should better secure their documents even the ones they are disposing of.
3
Utilitarian test
“A rational choice must maximize utility. We obviously cannot justify our actions in this way unless we get straight on what our ends are.” (Hooker, 2011)
John Pepper went to Unilever confessed what had happened.
There is not enough information to determine pass or fail on this.
4
John went to Unilever let them know about the contractors theft in showing that he was doing the right thing, Unilever played hard and demanded 20 million in damages and a third party audit firm to review to make sure that the information was not used.
4
The virtue test
“A rational choice must be consistent with who you are and why you are here.” (Hooker, 2011)
Contractors digging through trash to gain information.
John Pepper angered over the theft.
Admitted misconduct
This would have been considered a fail.
5
5
Conclusion
With everything that was presented, John Pepper was determined to make what had happened right.
Which he did by admitting theft, paying the agreed amount, and agreeing to the third party auditor reviewing to make sure the information was never used.
6
Reference
Hooker, J. (2011) Business ethics as rational choice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
7
