The Cover-up Most Important Facts - Case Study Example

One of the important facts to the case is Colin’s involvement in the act of purchasing the equipment and hiding it from the company and the fact is important because of the conflict of interest in it and its effects on involved stakeholders that establishes a dilemma. Even though the purchase was driven by personal interest that focused on desire for promotion and bonuses, it also aimed at benefiting the company and the personal interest would be a consequence. The decision to negotiate and purchase the equipment at a lower cost and for improving the department’s efficiency and return on investment offered benefits to the department and the corporate. Following the formal procedure for purchase of equipments whose costs are more than $ 50000 could have taken time and deprived the department of the short term returns and also the advantage of low cost of the equipment. Failure to ensure technical support however undermines the potential benefits (University of Waterloo 1). Another important fact to the case is Colin’s failure to disclose the decision and action that Jeff and he took and this identifies an ethical dilemma. Rose has been supportive to Colin and is good at offering advice. He is also Colin’s senior and Colin fears that possible disclosure would lead to his sacking even before arrival of corporate representatives. Continued concealment of their decision however means that he continues hiding costs until the corporate department knows about the issue (University of Waterloo 1). Another important fact to the case is Colin’s reaction to other people. He demonstrates harshness on his child and his wife complains of his over-commitment to work. Other people such as workmates could also be victims of Colin’s hyperactivity and this is an ethical issue as he could be subjecting people to unnecessary psychological harm (University of Waterloo 1). Possible Action In the situation, I would approach Rose and discuss the situation with him, expressing my sincere remorse. I would explain to him reasons for my failure to disclose cost of acquisition and expenses on the machine, contrary to reporting standards by IFRS 7 (Subramani 252) and identify morality of my action. According to utilitarian ethics, an act is only immoral if it leads to greater harm to a greater percentage of involved stakeholders (Brooks and Dunn 183) and even though the purchased equipment has not been used in the organization, its use could benefit all involved stakeholders to identify morality of the decision. The company could benefit from lower cost of purchase while the department could benefit from increased return on investment that could motivate employees and even earn them promotion and bonuses. The fact that no fraud was intended from the purchase also establishes morality. I would then ask for support for running the machine towards realizing benefits and would commit never to contravene the company’s policies. Also in identifying potential benefits of the decision to acquire the equipment, I would ask Rose to advocate for change in corporate policies to allow for faster approval and acquisition of high value equipments. My act would therefore also be a situation for influencing positive change in the organization. Failure to disclose the case to Rose however would expose me to judgment from two authorities. Case 2: Polluted Environment Most Important Facts The case involves a conflict among Frank, Jim, and Jean, all internal stakeholders of Amalgamated Forest Products Company. Jim has prepared a report that Jean, the company’s president, intends to present to the legislative sub-committee. This follows proposed legislation on waste disposal. Frank believes that the report is fabricated and is threatening to go public on this (Hellriegel & Slocum 220- 222). The first important fact to the case is the long-term relationship between Frank and the company that identifies Frank’s benefit from the company and suggests his moral responsibility to give back to the company. His father worked for the company and this means that the company helped in his upbringing. Upon completing his high school, the company employed him and when he suffered a severe injury that could have deprived him of his leg, the company facilitated his treatment. The company also took him to college and supported him throughout the education period. He can therefore attribute his success to the company and moral responsibility would suggest that his actions should support the company’s objectives. This places Frank in a dilemma because he does not believe in the current objective that the company is pursuing. Another important fact to the case is Frank’s professional reputation. Professional codes expect his moral actions and failure to meet expectations exposes him to risk of losing his designation. Frank notes that his designation could be revoked if things do not work out for the organization. He therefore faces the dilemma of exposing the misrepresentation in the report or risking his reputation and designation. The company’s intention is another important fact to the case. The government has proposed measures for controlling disposal and Frank notes that the company’s waste disposal is a threat to lives of people who consume contaminated water downstream. The company however wants to continue with its disposal practice. It is citing bankruptcy as the reason for opposing the proposed regulations while the regulations do not threaten the company’s profitability. This therefore suggests that the company is prioritizing its profit maximization in its bid to oppose the proposed regulations. Possible Action Being in Frank’s position, I would insist on going public on the issue in order to compel the company to review its report. My decision would aim at promoting morality in the organization’s approach to defending its position in order to ensure informed final decision on the regulations. This is because it is evident that implementation of the proposed regulations will protect further harm on users of water that the company and its competitors are polluting and the regulations should be implemented. The organization may also succeed it its bid to stop implementation of the regulation but its pollution could be detected in future and could lead to legal and financial implications that could be worse that effects of the proposed controls. Detection of the pollution would also lead to review of the company’s defense and revocation of Frank’s designation due to his failure to inform relevant stakeholders on the defense. Going public on the issue therefore offers long term benefits to the company in its long term sustainability, uses of the river in which the company disposes its waste, Frank, the government, and competitors who previously ensured safety of the river. It would however only reduce profitability of the company and the diverse benefits to the stakeholders identify ethics under utilitarianism. Works cited Brooks, Leonard and Dunn, Paul. Business & professional ethics for directors, executives & accountants. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning, 2009. Print. Hellriegel, Don & Slocum, John. Organizational behavior. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning, 2008. Print. Subramani, Venkata. Accounting for investments, fixed income securities and interest rate derivatives: A practitioner’s handbook. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2011. Print. University of Waterloo. “Colin Watson.” University of Waterloo. N.d. Web. December 3, 2014. . Read More