The Case of Great Brands Company - Essay Example

CASE – Great Brands This paper will provide an analysis of the case of Great Brands, which is a small marketing company operational in UK. Ahmed is one of the employees of Great Brands who enjoyed his working experience during his placement, but has inclination to set up his own marketing firm in case he does not selection job as an appropriate career. Nevertheless, Ahmed has also expressed with Managing Director Michelle Jordan (who is very much impressed with Ahmed’s behaviour and performance) his inclination that he may either return in future after completing his degree programme or may choose any other profession or business organisation. The paper will throw light over major ethical issues and analyse this case in the light of Consequentialist (Utilitarian) and Deontological ethical approaches. In addition, the researcher will also discuss how he would act or would have acted assuming himself as a top executive of Great Brands marketing company. There are two main ethical issues in this case. The first issue is about Ahmed’s plundering of private information of Great Brands when he electronically copied the customer database and some of the customised software applications software in case he sets up his own company in the future. The questions that arise here are whether Ahmad’s act was violation of company’s intellectual property rights and whether Ahmed had any other option if he was really interested in setting up his own business. The second major issue is that if Ahmed would establish his own company by using plundered clandestine information then his firm would become a direct competitor of Great Brands. Again the question is whether this is a violation of formal contract with Great Brands that Ahmed would not assist or facilitate any other company that competes with Great Brands because of confidentiality he promised with the officials. Consequentialist (Utilitarian) Theory and Analysis It should be mentioned that Utilitarian theory of business ethics is a contribution of proponents of Consequentialists who judges the viability of an option by analysing its positive and negative consequences. Utilitarian approach supports the fact that a solution that brings greater good to greatest number of people is the best solution because the entire society benefits from implementation of this alternative. In other words, the supporters of Utilitarianism have proposed that the scope of each proposed solution should be evaluated on the basis of costs and benefits (in quantitative terms) (White & Taft, 2004). In addition, the proposed alternatives should be shared with decision – makers of an organisation who could allow all concerned personnel to rate the effectiveness and feasibility of each alternative as well as provide relevant reasons for that rating. In this way, the use of number system may also facilitate executives, policy – makers and problem – solving committees in identifying best possible solution through mutual consensus and consideration of opinion (Granitz & Loewy, 2007). As far as the implementation of Utilitarian ethical theory is concerned, it is worth mentioning that Ahmed had first signed a formal contract with the company in which he pledged the confidentiality and that all intellectual property of the company should remain with Great Brands marketing firm. In the light of above, Ahmed’s act of making electronic copies of company’s customer database and some of the software applications would come under direct violation of law as well as morally and ethically unacceptable. It should be pinpointed that Ahmed broke his promise of confidentiality and tried to benefit from the assets owned by second party where he served during placement. Ahmed, therefore, has no right to plunder neither could benefit from something to which he has not made any significant contributions. In fact, it is justified to argue that Ahmed did not even have personal contacts with those customers nor he brought them to the company during his work tenure. Nevertheless, Utilitarian principle will mainly focus on consequences and effects of Ahmed’s act on financial and economic targets / objectives of Great Brands. Without any doubt, Ahmed has two possible alternatives with which he could reap monetary benefits. The first is to establish his own company, which will make him a direct competitor of Great Brands. Ahmed, of course, could offer company’s existing customers top quality services at lower prices that will adversely impact the sales, profitability and current market share of Great Brands, which actually prepared that customer base. Also, Ahmed’s firm will enjoy internal efficiencies because of implementation and use of Great Brands software applications. Hence, Great Brands could either involve in price wars because of increase in competition or could legally sue Ahmed for breach of formal contract and oral agreement. In both cases, Great Brands has to incur financial burden and costs that may sabotage company’s future growth plans. It should be recalled that Great Brands itself a small marketing firms having fewer financial resources; hence, it is not in position to assimilate such type of shocks for a longer time period. In case Ahmed changes his mind in near future and does not establish his own company, the second alternative is that he may also covertly sell Great Brands customer base to an existing competitor at a higher price. In this way, no one will have even a slightest idea of the hidden damage that Ahmed could bring to Great Brands. Also, it may become difficult for Great Brands to sue Ahmed legally because it will not have any genuine proof that Ahmed has violated the terms of formal contract. For instance, Ahmed could request the potential buyer of private information to hide his identity otherwise he would not share customer database. The prospective competitor of Great Brands will most probably accept Ahmed’s demand in order to ensure safe access to the marketing firm’s customer database. As a result, Great Brand has to face stiff competition from an already established current competitor that may utilise Ahmed’s information and benefit by increasing its target market and reach in the industry. Consequently, it’s Great Brands that will suffer stupendous losses due to leak of secret information. For instance, the top managers may also commence probes against Great Brands innocent employees assuming that someone within the firm has leaked the internal information. This may also sabotage organisational culture, harmony and employee - employer relationships at Great Brands. Deontological Theory and Analysis It is worthwhile to highlight the fact that Deontological principle of business ethics is reverse of Utilitarian ethical theory because it values the protection of an individual’s moral rights rather focusing on costs – benefits analysis without any consideration of morally right or wrong alternatives and their consequences. For instance, proponents of Deontology argue that no matter what personal consequences of a choice are, an individual should not violate the moral duties / obligations nor should allow other to violate one’s rights (Granitz & Loewy, 2007). In addition, Crane & Matten (2010) have pointed out the fact that Deontology also allows individuals to define their own moral and ethical choices by considering if an alternative does not bring harm to any other person. Similarly, business entities are allowed to formulate and implement their code of conduct to maintain organisational discipline, decorum, stability and control. In addition, governments could devise certain laws and regulations that will protect the interest of individuals and society as a whole. In the light of above theory, Ahmed’s act of making electronic copies of Great Brands customer database as well as of software applications will be viewed as morally wrong because Ahmed is directly involved in stealing private property and intangible assets of the marketing firms. For instance, Ahmed has no right to utilise these contacts even if he established his own firm in near future. In fact, it should be pointed out that Deontology does not prohibit Ahmed from setting up his own because this is viewed as Ahmed’s moral and ethical right; however, it strongly condemns the use of private customer information of another company (as it is not Ahmed’s property or legally secured copyrights, patents etc.) for attainment of financial gains and other business benefits. In any instance, it is unethical for Ahmed to use customer database and software applications of Great Brands without bringing it into official notice followed by permission of its top management. In addition, Deontological principle will also forbid Ahmed to sell Great Brands personal business contacts and buyers’ list to its competitor for monetary benefits if he disregards the idea of establishing his own company because of administrative or financial constraints. For instance, the major reason behind it is the fact that customer database is not Ahmed’s property / asset rather it was stole from information system deployed by Great Brands to facilitate its business operations. Hence, Ahmed’s act of selling customer contact information is also illegal, immoral and unethical because he could neither breach the terms of formal contract with Great Brands nor he could violate terms about confidentiality and intellectual property. My Decision Assuming himself as one of the top executives employed at Great Brands marketing company who is also aware of this grave situation, the researcher would have first informed the CEO, Directors and HR personnel about Ahmed’s stealing of company’s customer database and software applications. Having done this, I would instruct IT department to enhance security of company’s information systems and set ‘Authorised Entry Profiles’ for employees so that only selected organisational members and personnel could have access to extremely private and secret information of strategic importance. In this way, the company could minimise the probability of such acts in near future. For instance, I would then decide to approach Ahmed by using his personal information (secured in employee database at HR department) so that I could warn him, on behalf of Great Brands, that his illegal and unethical use of customer database and software applications would lead to legal war as the company would maintain the right to sue him for stealing and breaching the terms of formal contract. In conclusion, Ahmed would not be allowed in any instance to personally benefit (setting up his company) or let the competitors of Great Brands benefit (by selling information for financial gains) from internal information. References / Bibliography Crane, A. & Matten, D. (2010). Business Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 3rd edition Griseri, P. & Seppala, N. (2010). Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility. Andover: Cengage Learning Alexander, L. (2007). Deontological Ethics. Stanford University [Online] Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/ [Accessed: December 10, 2010] Granitz, Neil and Dana Loewy (2007). Applying Ethical Theories: Interpreting and Responding to Student Plagiarism. Journal of Business Ethics, 72: pp. 293–306 [Online] Available at http://www.springerlink.com/content/228335503677j346/fulltext.pdf [Accessed: December 15, 2010] Hellwig, Martin (2003). A Utilitarian Approach to the Provision and Pricing of Excludable Public Goods. University of Mannheim [Online] Available at http://madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de/madoc/volltexte/2010/2747/pdf/dp03_36.pdf [Accessed: December 15, 2010] White, Judith and Susan Taft (2004) Frameworks for Teaching and Learning Business Ethics within the Global Context: Background of Ethical Theories. Journal of Management Education, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 463-477 Myerson, Roger (1981). Utilitarianism, Egalitarianism, and the Timing Effect in Social Choice Problems. Econometrica, Vol. 49, No. 4, pp. 883-897 Read More