1.

The three important facts that will help us analyse the ethical issues in the case are as

follows:

 The first fact is that this is Jane’s first job upon graduating from her college and she is

still very insecure in her position. She is still trying to figure out how the business works

and also the employees she works with.

 The second fact that is important to be noted is that Eddie and Greg are brother and there

is always a special preference given to Greg as they are watching out for each other.

Another factor to be paid attention is that Brad is friends with Eddie and Greg

 The final factor is that Jane will get fired by Eddie, her boss, if she goes public about how

he treats Greg or if she goes over his head with this matter

2.After careful analysis the list of the stakeholder in the case study are as follows:

 Jane ( Payroll head)

 Brad (Supervisor)

 Eddie ( Owner)

 Greg ( the owner’s brother)

 Other employees working at the company

 Other technicians

3. Four possible choices that Jane could make are as follows:

 The first choice that Jane could make is to keep quite and pretend as is she hasn’t seen

Eddie’s wrongdoings at all. She could ignore the problem and decide to not discuss the

matter with other employees.

 The second choice that she could make is to go inform the matter to other technicians and

put and end to this matter putting her job at risk

 The third choice she could make is to speak with Eddie in private. This will prevent the

matter from being escalated and they both can come up to a decision or conclusion.

 The last choice would be for Jane to quit and not work in a firm that makes her come

across ethical and personal conflicts on a day to day basis.

4. The first choice, that is to keep quiet and not discuss the matter and carry on normally

according to the utilitarian view would be justifiable. This provides the greatest benefit to the

greatest number. For example, Jane could keep her job, not risk other technicians’ job and

also not put Greg’s job in line, being an outstanding employee at the company. But according

to the justice view, this would not be ethical as it doesn’t lead to the benefits and burdens

being fairly distributed among the employees. The second and third option would be ethical

when we look into the justice view. Going to other technicians and informing them about

such a matter which help the address the issue and prevent this from happening to new

employees even if it means putting their jobs at risk. It will ensure that all employees are

treated equally and fair no matter the size of the company. Jane quitting her job would make

any difference, as it wouldn’t stop the employees being treated the way they are right now,

and Greg would continue getting the special treatment as before.

5. As an individual, I would prefer making ethical decisions and practices in the organisation

that I choose to work. Before going to other technicians and telling them about the matter, I

would go to Greg and have a talk with him. This would be a good way to understand the

reasons behind this behaviour of his. I will also help me understand the answers to the main

question regarding if it is fair and ethical if all the technicians do not have the same monetary

opportunities. If Greg as an owner doesn’t seem to bother about explaining his actions, I

would inform this to the employees even if it means putting my job at risk. As an individual, I

would prefer to work in an organisation that practices ethical behaviour and promotes

integrity. Staying at this job would just make me cover Greg’s unethical behaviour over and
over again, and this is something that I would be comfortable with as it goes against my

ethos.

6. Such behaviour can be prevented again in the future if they have a strong code of ethics set

in place to govern the employee behaviour and determine what behaviour is right and wrong.

If set in place it can force Greg to abide by certain ethical codes of conduct and give same

options to all employees and not give special treatment to something just because of being

related.

Part 2

1. Corporate social responsibility is an argument of moral reasoning because it ultimately

reflects the relationship between the business and the community it operates in. It

assumes that business as a moral obligation towards the society it operates in. It also

considers the success of an organisation from its ability to give back to the society and

also take care of all its stakeholder, bother external and internal. Corporate social

responsibility is based on the interdependence and interaction between the for-profits and

the community. According to the moral view, all CSR must be shaped by standards of

morality, ethics, and values that define contemporary views of human rights and social

justice. All organisation has a moral obligation to repay its what it owes to its community

to ensure business success.

According to the business view, it is okay for manager to focus solely on profits and the

moral obligations towards the society is the responsibility of the government and non-

profit organizations. It also argues that business that operating to only create products and

services rather than focusing on social welfare activities. They might not always have the

required knowledge to take care of welfare activities or social problems. If the top

management were to take care of CSR activities, they wouldn’t have the time to take care
of the firm’s primary duties to their full capacity. According to the business view, being

socially responsible can affect a company position in the global marketplace. Donating

money, ensuring product safety and cleaning up the community will all take up

significant amount of money from the business and will raise the company’s cost of doing

business. This cost will then be passed to the consumers and can ultimately affect their

profits and be of an economic disadvantage.

Personally,

Finally, when we look at the quote that “Only human beings have a moral responsibility

for their actions”, I truly agree with that. As individuals, each and every one of us must

be held accountable for our actions towards the community we live in. Only human

beings can be morally responsible, and the actions of a firm are those of its individual

members. I also feel that in today; s business environment, it is important for all forms to

look into CSR activities and it is their moral obligation to do so. The short-term cost in

doing so will be compensated in the future by having a strong and loyal customer base

valuing your brand. Todays people are more conscious about the brands they purchase

and information about their business operations especially if they indulge in unethical

activities can be easily found out. Corporate consciousness among consumers is on the

rise. There are several studies that shows how strong CSR can increase the market value

by 4-6%. Customer now are going for brands that show strong CR towards its external

stakeholder ultimately affecting their brand reputation. Hence even though CSR activities

might cost money in short term, in the long run, it can bring tremendous profits to the

company’s bottom line. Finally, CSR must be the responsibility of the entire firm and no

of and individual person.