Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sticky Situation - Ethics Case Analysis
Sticky Situation - Ethics Case Analysis
Sticky Situation - Ethics Case Analysis
2 0 1 9 - 20
As per our analysis, we came to a conclusion that the situation needed to be dealt in an ethical
manner, which involves transparency between both the involved parties keeping in mind the
Following are the measures which should have been taken by Kent to address the situation:
1. Kent should have informed Jack clearly that their company doesn’t produce multi-label
products as requested by him. He could have discussed with Tim Davis and the production
team about the feasibility of the product before commenting on the possibility of production.
2. After discussing with Marty Klein, if it is known that the production is not feasible for Dura
Stick, he should have informed Jack that the company does not produce the multi-color
consumer type label and the production will have to be outsourced, from a reliable
manufacturer. He could assure Jack that the quality standards would be the same as that of
Dura-Stick Label Products. Additionally, Tom Davis would oversee the entire process.
3. Also, a reasonable cost for the product should be arrived at after discussion with Marty which
The offer for this new project was the largest offer both Jack and Dura Stick had ever received.
Considering this as a big opportunity in the new market, the offer can’t be declined straightforwardly.
The decision we have taken for this new project is not only aligned with ethical values required in a
business but also focuses on the expansion as well as the profitability of the company. Kent’s main
motive was to achieve Job Security and he failed to take into account the impact on the other key
stakeholders i.e. Dura-Stick and Spray On. The violation of business ethics by Kent cannot be
justified as it was against his role as a company leader as well as a community leader.
After analyzing the case, we were able to identify three instances where Kent violated business
ethics:
1. When he didn’t inform Jack that Dura Stick didn’t manufacture the required product (Multi
Colored Labels), he not only threatened the existence of his company but also of Jack’s
2. When he blatantly lied about the reason behind the higher cost of the product ordered by
Jack.
3. Displaying poor management of ethics by keeping Jack under the impression that Tim Davis
Hence, we came to a conclusion that Kent’s action were not acceptable and he could have handled
The decision taken by us that Kent should be transparent and reveal the actual situation to Jack can
have multiple negative consequences. There is a chance that Dura Stick might not get the offer from
SprayOn which puts Kent's own job security at risk since his performance in the organization has
been mediocre till now. Secondly, there is also a chance that SprayOn might altogether shift to
another company for its operations. Thirdly, the reputation of the company could be negatively
affected.
To overcome the negative consequences, we can cut our profit margins initially to compensate for
the mistake and retain the business from Jack. It will showcase that the company will go out of the
way to maintain good business relations with Spray On. Also, company should draft a policy
regarding ethical Code of Conduct to ensure such situations do not arise in future.