Chapter 2

Q1. What judgement would you make about Mylan? Did they do anything
ethically wrong in their pricing of the EpiPen?
From our point of view, Mylan is liable on their action. They acted unethically
in pricing of the EpiPen as they are taking advantage of their monopoly of the market.
From the perspective of virtue ethics, we can see the greedy and selfish of
Mylan in the price gouging of the EpiPen. The pricing of EpiPen raised from $60 to
over $600 (2 doses) during 2007 to 2016 while the manufacturing cost of an EpiPen is
only costing at most a few dollars. In 2016, sales of EpiPen were estimated at around
$1.5 billion. The massive profit earned from the sales reflected in the raise of annual
compensation of Mylan’s CEO which rose from $2.3 to $19 million during the period.
Therefore, the price gouging of the EpiPen has happened to fulfill their personal
interests as greedy and selfish.
From the perspective of utilitarianism ethics, Mylan were not making an
ethical decisions on their pricing of EpiPen by determining the overall social
consequences. The burden of high drug prices fell disproportionately on the poor. The
fairness and equality is violated by a system in which health care is distributed
according to the ability to pay. The wealth of Mylan’s executives were gained by
sacrificing the access of poor and sick people.
From the perspective of principle-based ethics, as a pharmaceutical company,
Mylan’s mission is grounded in a belief that every person matters and should have the
opportunity to live the healthiest life possible. However, Mylan had violated their
words when they gained massive revenue on sales of EpiPen at an unaffordable price.
On the other side, Mylan were abusing their political influence, lobbying activities,
and marketing campaign to create artificial market, eliminate competition and deny
the poorest citizens access to needed health care.
In conclusion, Mylan has acted in a manner that has negatively affected the
ones who reply on the EpiPen. Mylan has chose the action that benefit for their own
business profit and did not fully take into account the health of others.

Q2. Do you think that a pharmaceutical company should be allowed to charge

whatever price the market will pay for prescription drugs? Should prescription
drugs be treated differently than any other consumer product?
In our opinion, we think that a pharmaceutical company should not be allowed
to charge whatever price the market will pay for prescription drugs. If a
pharmaceutical company charges higher price for prescription drugs, a basic principle
of fairness and equality will be violated. The burden of high drug prices will fall
disproportionately on the poor because health care is distributed according to the
ability to pay. As such, poor, sick people will be denied access to the prescription
drugs, putting millions of lives at risk.
Furthermore, there should be greater governmental involvement in the pricing
system for prescription drugs. Better overall health care will be provided if a managed
health care system is regulated by public bodies. Price gouging on prescription drugs
could be prevented if there is government regulation.
 Besides that, a pharmaceutical company should not be allowed to charge
whatever price the market will pay for prescription drugs despite investing heavily in
marketing the product. For example, Mylan should not use improvement in design
and manufacturing process as an excuse to charge higher for prescription drugs since
the overall product did not change significantly. According to the U.S. Drug
Accountability Office, prescription pharmaceutical sales and profit of pharmaceutical
companies have risen over the same time period. However, there has been no
significant increase in research and development spending over the same time period. 
Moreover, a pharmaceutical company charging higher price for prescription
drugs violates utilitarianism where its goal is to maximize the happiness in the long
run for all conscious beings that are affected by the business action. Happiness must
be understood in terms of pleasure and the absence of pain. Stakeholders of the
company will become outrage if the price has gone to the extreme. 
In our opinion, prescription drugs should not be treated differently than any
other consumer product by lobbying governments to require institutions like schools
to keep prescription drugs on hand for emergencies and to protect those institutions
from liability for using prescription drugs in emergencies. As a pharmaceutical
company, they should not abuse their political influence to earn higher revenue.
Instead, they should conduct more research and development activities to improve the
product. 

Q3. Congressman Duncan used the word ‘greed’ when describing Mylan’s
actions. What is the difference between greed and simply the desire for more
money? Is greed always bad? Why or why not?
Greed is a selfish or excessive desire for more than what is needed, especially for
money, wealth, food or other possessions. It is a desire taken to the extreme. A desire
comes from need, it is someone or something wished for or to wish for earnestly. In
this case, Mylan’s massive profit was based on self-interest, disregard of basic ethical
principles. Mylan exploited on the consumers by raising the price of EpiPen from $60
to $200 due to greed.
From our point of view, greed is always bad. Greed, as defined, is the excessive desire
for more than needed or deserved. It is not for a greater good but for one’s selfish
interest. Apparently, greed has violated the basic concepts of ethics, in terms of
utilitarian ethics and principle-based ethics. Firstly, from the perspective of utilitarian
ethics, government and social institutions exist for the well-being of all people.
However, Mylan used its political influence in order to create artificial markets by
ensuring the sales of EpiPens in schools and institutions, to eliminate competition by
creating regulatory standards that created a barrier to keep out competitors from local
market. Mylan’s greed had misused government’s function to satisfy self-interest.
Besides that, when we look from the perspective of principle-based ethics, where the
correct path is determined by certain principles or duties. There are things that we
should, or should not, do regardless of the consequences. Greed is one of them. Mylan
sacrificed the consumer rights in order to earn more in terms of the unreasonable
increase of price incurred on the patients with a holding of 90 percent market share.
The basic principle of fairness and equality had been violated followed by the
sacrifice of basic right of health care on the poor. Greed had caused Mylan to negate
their duty to provide the EpiPens at an affordable price.
Q4. As a citizen, would you support more, or less, government oversight and
regulation for the pharmaceutical industry? Why?
As a citizen, I would support less on the government oversight and regulation
for the pharmaceutical industry in terms of marketing activities as it harms the public
interests to have adequate healthcare unintentionally. Often, government has gone
beyond cooperation and actively promoted industry's interests through legislation and
policies, even when industry's interests conflicted with those of the public. As in
Mylan’s case, the excessive involvement from government such as requiring
institutions and schools to stock EpiPens and the regulatory standard which created a
barrier for the competitors to enter the market, has resulted in the market monopoly
by Mylan. Subsequently, the citizens suffer from unreasonably higher prices for the
drugs they need throughout the Mylan’s monopoly period. To improve the situation,
government should review and amend the standard by lowering the barriers to enter
the drug’s market. If not, government needs to intervene at the right timing by setting
pricing control such as price caps to prevent the dominated company from setting
unreasonable prices. In short, the government should only act for the common good of
community.
However, in terms of production, research and development of drugs, I would
favour oversight and regulation from government in order to protect the public safety
in using the drugs. Some incentives that are given by the government can be a way to
encourage the development of safe and effective drugs. Every type of drugs that
produce by the pharmaceutical companies need to be heavily regulated to make sure
they are in compliance with federal safety laws. For example, in the United States, the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ensures that new drugs are rigorously tested for
safety, efficacy and minimal side effects. It is clear that the supervision of government
in drugs production can give a positive impact to the public.
In conclusion, the government, who should be always act in the public
interests, need to weigh the potential benefits and costs of a policy to determine
whether it will make the public better off, and less on protecting the interests of the
pharmaceutical industry. Doing so will benefit both patients and the public purse. In
the pharmaceutical industry, policies should promote research and development while
ensuring citizens can easily access the drugs they need.

Q5. What duties do pharmaceutical companies have towards customers?

First of all, pharmaceutical companies should discover and produce
considerable resources to new cures and treatment options to combat the illnesses and
diseases affecting today’s community. At the same time, they should comply with the
federal standards that ensuring the public’s safety. Their duties are mainly to do more
research and development to improve the drug which could benefit the public
healthcare in a more effective way.
Furthermore, pharmaceutical companies should embrace their moral duty to
provide drugs as an end (public good) rather than as a means (to profit). In this
context, they should supply the drugs at an affordable price to the public so that the
poor and sick ones can have access to it. Not to say that the companies cannot gain
any profits from the drugs products, but at a low profit margin. They should uphold
their goal which is to improve public healthcare but not only concerning on their own
interests to produce greater profits. 
Q6. When, if at all, is it unfair that a consumer cannot afford a product that he
or she wants or needs?
We think it is unfair when human rights to get timely, acceptable, and
affordable health care of appropriate quality is violated. Thus, when a consumer
cannot afford basic medical resources to enjoy good health, it is unfair. This leads to
health care inequality. Health care inequality is when one group of people in an
economy are in much worse health than another group. Research has found that health
inequality is correlated with income inequality as the higher your income, the better
your health. And this leads to another problem - higher health rate. Before the
Affordable Care Act, almost 25% of Americans had little or no health insurance. As a
result, over 101,000 of them died each year because they couldn't afford the high cost
of health care.
Besides, it is unfair when a company set their products at an extremely high
price from what consumers should actually pay. Regarding the case study, Mylan took
advantage of  selling in monopolistic market by increasing their product’s price as
high as they can for as long as they can. The price hike was too extreme until most of
the people cannot afford the product that they need and I think it is unfair to the
consumers.

Q7. Do you agree that “no one can really earn or deserve $19 million a year”?
How about $90 million?
We do not agree that “no one can really earn or deserve $19 million a year”, same
goes to $90 million. We believe that anyone can earn that large amount of money and
even deserve that amount of money if he or she earns it legally and ethically. For
example, Bill Gates, the Microsoft founder earned $11.5 billion a year in 2013, and
for now, assuming that Bill Gates had a regular bank savings account with an interest
rate of 3 %, he would earn around $7.7 million dollar a day. However, we think that
he deserves that amount of money as he earns legally and ethically and at the same
time, he contributes to the community by involving in charity, donating their money
and setting up a foundation to help people.

Chapter 3

Q1. What responsibilities does Facebook (or Google or Twitter) have for policing
political advertisement placed on their platform?

Facebook (or Google or Twitter) held the corporate social responsibility to the US
society for policing political advertisement placed on their platform. Business
decisions are deeply and inseparably connected to social and political decisions.
Facebook should have taken step into inspecting the advertisements sold by working
directly with the advertisers and review each of the advertisement individually. The
process of purchase of ads should be made in a strict manner where harmful ads could
be censored after the review and approval made by Facebook.

Besides that, Facebook also held responsibility in reviewing on how the application
on Facebook collecting and storing the data. Any approach used by application on
Facebook in collecting and storing user’s data should be strictly monitored and
prohibited. Facebook in facts, must regulate their policies to avoid the data collections
to be saved and commercially sold. It is a social responsibility which should be held
by Facebook to protect its users from harm as the pursuit of profit is always
constrained by an obligation to obey a moral minimum.

Q2. By all accounts, Facebook did not do anything illegal in any of these
situations, but did they fail in any ethical duties?
From our opinion, we think that Facebook has failed in their ethical duties
even though they did not do anything illegal in any of the situations mentioned in the
discussion case. 
Facebook’s decisions affect a wide variety of people, benefiting some and
imposing costs on others. The information spread through Facebook produced far-
ranging consequences throughout the society. Facebook should understand that their
advertisements can reach millions of people around the world. They should be aware
of their influence on the widespread information. However, Facebook claimed they
did not know about the content of the advertisement and not aware of the impact
caused after the advertisement has been published. For example, Facebook provided
access to Cambridge Analytica which indirectly disrupted the 2016 election in which
Cambridge Analytica is a business with alleged connections to the Trump campaign
and foreign parties.
In conclusion, Facebook did maximize their profit in their nature of business
but the ends attained are unsatisfactory on ethical ground. Even though Facebook did
their business in a legal way but they also caused harm to others in which fail their
ethical duties. 

Q3. Use the decision procedure outlined in chapter 1 to analyze this case: Are
there any facts that would help clarify the ethics of this case? Who are the
stakeholders in this case? Who benefited and who was harmed by Facebook’s
actions? What should Facebook do going forward?
The fact that would help clarify the ethics of this case is where an app to
administer a personality test not only collect data on those directly using the app but
also on everyone listed as a “friend” of those users without knowing about or having
consented to having their information collected. As a result, data from more than 50
million people were collected and transferred or sold to Cambridge Analytica. This is
clearly a violation of ethics. The stakeholders in this case are the Facebook users,
Donald Trump and the Russian. The Trump presidential campaign has benefitted by
hiring Cambridge Analytica who used the data provided by Kogan to develop some
Facebook profiles that were used as part of their political consultancy business. The
Facebook users were harmed by Facebook’s actions as they did not know that their
personal information had been collected. Their privacy had been violated. Hence,
Facebook should develop policies to regulate what those companies given access to
Facebook’s data could do with the data collected. For example, Facebook should
prohibit against storing those data and using them for any reason other than to better
target products. 

Q4 Facebook’s claim that it is just a platform for bringing people together and
not a media company is reminiscent of a claim that Nike made years ago when
they were criticized for the use of child labour in their supply chain. Nike
executives defended themselves by claiming that Nike is just a marketing
company and not a manufacturer. Similarly, Uber recently defended itself
against charges of mistreating drivers by claiming that they are not a
transportation company but just a platform for bringing together independent
contractors and customers. All these responses share an underlying assumption
that different companies have different responsibilities depending on their
corporate purpose. How is the purpose of a company related to its ethical
responsibilities?
For a company, the main purpose of the business is to maximize profit and
improve the growth of business. However, from ethics perspective, a business should
be able to contribute a positive change to the society and environment. The motives
can be independent and do not need to conflict with each other. A business is still able
to generate profits while doing good to the society. 
The purpose and its ethical responsibilities are linked together, in which every
decision or policy made to achieve the purpose must be satisfactory in addressing
society’s concerns. For example, Facebook as one of the largest social media
businesses serving the purpose of connecting people in the international market, the
company affects billions of online users. It has the power to shape public opinion,
hence Facebook must consider its massive role in facilitating the communications of
over a fourth of the world. They must understand that every business decision made
affects a wide variety of people. There will be a situation in which some decisions are
beneficial to some people and impose costs on others. Thus, the management needs to
balance the ethical interests of all affected parties.
Taking another example, Uber, an online transportation network company, is
having ethical responsibilities on passenger’s safety as well as the security of drivers.
While providing the services and expanding their market share, they need to take the
above issues into concern. 
In short, businesses should balance profit-making activities with activities that
give benefits to society, which involves developing businesses with a positive
relationship with the society in which they operate.

Q5 Does a company have special or extra responsibilities to the country in which

it operates?
Yes, I think a company has special or extra responsibilities to the country in which it
operates. Company is highly responsible on the environment the employees. Since the
company operates in that country, it should have extra responsibility on that particular
country as it affects more on the environment and people in that country. In terms of
sustainability, a company should operate without compromising the planet’s
environmental condition in the future. In other words, a sustainable corporation is one
that can sustain its current activities without adding to the world’s environmental
problems, and especially the environmental problems in the country it operates. If a
company produces lots of waste and does not treat the waste properly, it will directly
affect the people in that country. Thus, I believe that a company has extra
responsibilities to the country it operates in.
Chapter 4

Q1. Do organizations to which you belong (e.g. a school, a club, a

fraternity/sorority, a sport team) have a “culture”? How did it arise? How could
it be changed?
Basically, in an organization, its culture is formed through the underlying
beliefs, assumptions, values and ways of interacting among the people in the
organization. It then leads to a unique social and psychological organizational
environment. Six months ago, I have undergone an internship in audit department of a
Big 4 accounting firm. The company adopts a hierarchical corporate culture, in which
every entity in the organization, except one, is subordinate to a single other entity.
Under this kind of organizational culture, the process of decision making is quite
time-consuming as it involves many layers of information transmission. This culture
has been rooted in the organization since many years ago and it is hard to change or
move to another new culture. However, the leaders in the organization can take
initiative to collaboratively make decisions with other teams. In that manner hierarchy
culture can be avoided and flatter structure can be considered.
Furthermore, there is a culture of working overtime in the organization due to
massive workloads and tight deadline.The staffs are forced to spend extra time to
complete the works even until late at night. In such a culture with hierarchy,  no one
feels able to leave the office before work is completed, or even before the senior
management leave. The unhealthy working culture has become a main factor of
physical health problems and the demise of mental health among the employees, in
which the management should take serious action to drive a culture change. Firstly,
the workload should be assigned appropriately to make sure that the employees are
not overburdened. At the same time, the organization should cultivate an effective
time management culture, educating the employees to do things smart and in an
organized and timely manner to meet the deadline without working overtime.

Q2. How can corporate leaders shape the culture of their organization? Are they
responsible for creating the culture?
Corporate leaders can shape the culture of their organization by setting
direction, executing strategy, and creating an environment for innovation. Leaders’
values, actions, and the development of their teams need to visibly reinforce the
culture of the organization. Through the example they set, leaders shape the culture in
their words and actions every day. These actions then gain momentum through
structures and policies to shape how employees operate. A leader needs to understand
his or her fit within the culture and use that awareness to drive positive change. Some
leaders tend to “go with the flow,” leveraging existing channels to get things done.
Others may tend to move outside of traditional processes, leveraging different values
or behaviors to achieve results. Leaders aware of their place within the existing
culture can more effectively drive change. An effective leader uses this self-awareness
to inform an intentional approach toward daily decision-making, recognizing that
each action shapes the culture in which they operate. Besides, a leader needs to
connect with employees’ hearts and minds, aligning to a common purpose. To shape
and sustain organizational culture, leaders need to connect with the emotional side of
the workforce, creating a shared sense of purpose and motivation.
 Corporate leaders are responsible for creating the culture of their organization.
Corporate leadership is responsible for stewarding efforts related to the promotion of
ethical decision making in a corporate environment. In thought, word, and deed, a
company’s leaders must clearly and unambiguously both advocate and model ethical
behavior. Besides, it is important for a leader to project the impression of being a
people-oriented leader and to engage in ethical actions that can be seen by others.
Being perceived as a leader plays an important role in a leader’s ability to create and
transform an ethical corporate culture. Leaders have the responsibility for shaping an
environment in which ethical decision making can flourish.

Q3. How would you assign responsibility for the VW scandal? What should have
been done differently and by whom? 
From our opinions, the responsibility of the VW scandal should be assigned to the
managerial level of VW. For example, the VW CEO Martin Winterkorn, who denied
any knowledge or involvement of the scandal, had failed his duties in oversight the
company operation. The scandal, which officially admitted by VW that was an
intentional fraud, was been placed responsibility to a small number of engineers.
However, the diesel was a core product of VW, there was likely impossible that a
small number of engineers will conduct a major fraud intentionally with a product
which subjected to extensive governmental testing and regulation across the globe
without any acknowledgement of VW. Therefore, even though there might be only a
small decision to insert defeat device by the engineers who have been criticized, there
must be a failure of oversight and control at every level in the company structure. In
this case, we can see that the failure of information flow between the managerial
executives and board members. For instance, board members of VW were claimed
they were unaware of the fraud as they were not kept informed of the company
operation. The board members criticized the managerial executives had failed their
duties in overseeing the company operation where neither fixed the problem nor failed
to inform the board members. However, the board members could not be excluded
from the responsibility as they are part of the company and should be aware of the
operation in the company.
In this case, the company structure should be re-organize to make sure the managerial
executives and board members can effectively and efficiently oversee the company’s
operation. They should always be aware of what is happening in the company to
prevent the misconduct in the future. The company should also enhance the
acknowledgement and implementation of code of ethics of the employees to improve
the social responsibility to avoid the misconduct which might affect the safety of the
consumer.

Q4. Who are the stakeholders in this case? How were the interests of each
stakeholder represented?
The stakeholder in this case is the employees of Volkswagen. Employees have
a direct stake in the company in that they earn an income to support themselves, as
well as other benefits. Employees may also have a health and safety interest
depending on the nature of the business. In this case, Volkwagen (VW) had suffered
huge losses in sales as a result of the scandal. Therefore, the incident had decreased
the profit of VW which reduced the income and benefits of the employees. As a
result, the purchasing power of the employees had been reduced.
 Next, the stakeholder in this case is the investors which include both
shareholders and debtholders. Shareholders invest capital in order to earn a certain
rate of return on that capital. In this case, Within days after the recall, Volkswagen’s
stock price had dropped almost 40 percent. The shareholders suffered the loss and
they no longer placed the business value on VW. 
Furthermore, the stakeholder in this case is the communities. Communities are
major stakeholders in large businesses. They are impacted by a wide range of things,
including health, and safety. In this case, the cars emitted nitrous oxide pollution that
was up to forty times higher than what was allowed by law. They emitted more
pollution, especially nitrous oxides and particulate matter (the black soot often seen
coming from truck or bus exhaust). As a result, the health of the communities were
affected badly. 

Q5. Is it fair to expect employees, whether they are professionals such as

engineers and accountants or entry level sales people like those at Well Fargo, to
confront management over directives that they believe are unethical?
In my opinion, I think that it is unfair to expect employees at any levels or professions
to confront management over the unethical directives. It takes a great courage for an
individual to actually confront their superior regarding the unethical directives carried
out by them. This is indeed a risky option as higher management holds the power to
silence those who deny or object to their decision. In the Well Fargo case, the staff
who attempt to blow the whistle got punished by losing their job and receiving
negative evaluation from the company. To expect employee to confront management
over unethical directives seems so careless when it could actually affect their current
job and even their future career. This is extremely unfair especially when we see there
is not much ethical behaviour is enforced throughout the company and there is not
much code of ethic is being conducted. From VW case, the entire engineering teams
who failed to achieve unattainable goals for diesel emissions, performance and costs
was being dismissed. The company chose the team that could guarantee performance
and cut cost to the minimum but ignore the diesel emissions issue that could endanger
the society, clearly, employees wasn’t that significant and powerful to be able to
confront to the management decision. However, employee does have their right to
voice out their opinion, the right to whether confront management over the unethical
directives lies with themselves. Considering each individual’s perception, thus, I think
that it is unfair to expect such act from the employees.

Q6. What changes to the VW board would you recommend that might help
prevent future scandals?
Currently, VW board comprises twenty members who consists of former corporate
finance director, representatives of VW’s union workers, the founder’s family,
representatives of the German state of Lower Saxony, and representatives of the
country of Qatar. There is only one member could be classified as independent among
the twenty members in the board. The board structure is at the root of VW’s
dysfunctional governance. Member of the supervisory board have split loyalties has
conflict with the duties for corporate transparency and integrity. For example, the
board chair Ferdinand Piech had attempted to fire Winterkorn but ends up with
Piech’s resignation upon failed to oust Winterkorn. Conflict between the board
members and executives should be avoided. An ideal board member is expected to act
independently from personal interests to achieve the company’s goal. The board
members should act in consideration of the company’s benefits instead of their own
benefits. Therefore, VW board should be restructured to involve more independent
member or reduce the number of non-independent members in the board to make a
situation where a fair and justify decision can be made for the company’s good. 
In addition, the board should actively involved in the company’s operation. In the
case, the board claimed the senior executives failing to keep the board informed.
However, the board should take an active role in understanding the company’s
situation and operation instead of not giving any concern towards the company. 

Q7. The codetermination principle was created to ensure that employees have a
role in managerial decision making, thus creating a more democratic and
accountable workplace. What are the benefits of this model? What are the
disadvantages?
The benefit of this model is that the codetermination principle actually has
fostered a healthy degree of communication and cooperation between management
and workers. The businesses as well as the workers have been benefited in turn.
Workers have input into important decisions. Hence, the companies are less plagued
by labor strife and internal schisms, which can easily paralyze a company. 
Besides that, employees can also obtain information that is useful in contract
negotiations, such as profit and wage data. Therefore, they are in ideal position to
negotiate. 
Furthermore, workers generally have a say in their workplace and work
conditions far beyond what any workers in the United States can even imagine.
European community-oriented values and long-term strategic vision are also reflected.
Moreover, a more harmonious route cannot be facilitated without
codetermination. It also gives Europe a distinct advantage over its competitors.
According to Professor Levinson, he says that codetermination is better for long-term
planning, and it’s better for making everyone feel like they have input into their
economic destiny. 
The disadvantages of codetermination is that it is hard to follow the principle
of delegation of authority effectively. The decision-making process is slow.
Codetermination has been criticized for its lack of modern techniques of management
such as risk analysis, decision theory, linear programming and simulation. 
Next, the independence rule is violated by having codetermination. The board
is unable to make just and impartial decisions. It would be difficult, for example, to
get approval for job cuts from a board with 60 percent of its membership in the hands
of unions and local governments. 

Q8. What do you understand by “independent” board member? Who or what

should an independent board member be? Independent from whom or what?
An independent board member is the board of directors who are made up of members
which hold no material interests in that particular company. They should be the one
who have no material interests other than their directorship. An independent board
member is required to be free from any influences that might compromise the
relationship between the member and the company. According to the International
Finance Corporation, an independent board member must not be involved with the
company for the past five years in any business with the company or the customers of
the company.
Besides that, it is important for independent board member to not hold any of the
share of the company. Independent board member receives compensation as well, but
however this is not the major source of income received by them as there should be a
limit on the remuneration paid to them.
From this case study, we could see that over the 20 members, Volkswagen has only
one member could be classified as independent while others are made up of the
representatives of workers and stockholders. When the board members are not
independent, they are profit-driven. Any decisions made that will cause harm to the
board member, which are non-independent in this case, is denied and rejected. As an
example, the approval of job cut would be difficult when most of the board members
are union workers and local governments.

Chapter 5

Q1. Could you ever envision a point in your own life before retirement when you
would be willing to trade wages and income for more leisure time? Besides
taking away from work to raise a family, what other reasons might lead you to
consider such a decision? Do you know anyone who has done this?
Yes, I would be willing to trade wages and income for more leisure time
before retirement in the condition that I have some savings that would support my
living expenses when I am away from work. In my point of view, wages and income
represents general purchasing power to buy goods or services to satisfy various wants
indirectly. On the other hand, leisure time which can be used to do the activities that I
like does provide the ultimate satisfaction to me in a direct way. 
Besides taking away from work to raise a family or in other words, to spend
time with family, I would like to spend time with myself and use the leisure time to
boost my personal growth. Nowadays, it is no longer possible for someone to leave
the work completely after leaving the workplace. Subsequently, we could hardly have
a proper time to sit back and recharge ourselves. By spending time alone, either just
having a nice cup of coffee in a cozy cafe or having a long walk in woods, are able to
give us a feeling of happiness and calmness which could not be bought. At the same
time, we can reflect ourselves and come out with new goals as well as prepare a plan
to achieve it. The leisure time is valuable when we use it for personal improvements.
For example, I could attend some short term classes to learn some skills like cooking
or drawing based on my personal interests. 
Taking example of a leadership specialist writer, Ric Kelly, he takes a mini-
retirement from a large corporate company, which means that taking a short break
from work and resuming where he left off later. During the period, he carries out
personal reflection, figures out his life values and gains a deeper passion for
developing leaders. After the break, he has a clearer target which is to start his own
leadership consultant company. He enjoys every minute working in the company, just
because he is doing the thing he loved. Last but not least, as he said, taking time out
from the structured work life can help to determine what is important to us and give
us the ideas, vision and confidence to become who we truly want to be.

Q2. What factors other than wages would influence you to change job? To take a
job? To quit a job? Other than wages, what are the three most important aspects
of any job you would seek? If not for wages, why work? If you were granted
extra time each day, would you choose to spend any of it at work?
Firstly, work environment constitute a very crucial part in seeking for job. The
interaction among peers and colleagues gives an overall idea of how good we are to
fit into the job and the society. It is important as we are working; we are seeking for a
good and healthy relationship between colleagues. Besides that, it is also important
that we are able to communicate openly with various level of management which
indicate how collaborative works in that particular company. We often seek more
opportunity to learn more in an organization, hence, it is important for me to learn on
the environment first to know is there any opportunity for me to learn continuously
with the guidance of superior.
Secondly, employee’s benefit stands an important element in seeking a job. In my
opinion, employee’s benefit is how company and management express their gratitude
and appreciation towards the staffs. A greater employee’s benefit does motivate us, as
an employee, to continue in developing our career in it. Some examples of
employee’s benefit are overtime, medical insurance, vacation, retirement benefits and
so on.
Lastly, I would definitely go for a company which emphasize on work life balance.
Work life balance is a state of equilibrium where demands of personal life,
professional life and family life are equal. Work life balance is important as it provide
a more flexible working schedule, where employees could enjoy parts of their life
aside from working.
Human fulfilment model suggests that besides wages, work actually provide a person
with opportunity for psychological goods as high self-esteem, self-respect and a stable
mental and physical health. Works also provide us with social goods such as
friendship, companionship, sense of belonging and a sense of purpose. As we work,
we develop our relationship with people around us and build up our character traits in
order to live a fulfilled and meaningful life. If I were granted extra time each day, I
would not choose to spend it more at my work because I have learned that, asides
from work, there are still family and friends that we should be spending time with.
Furthermore, I could also spend the time by doing some self-improvement in other
aspect.

Q3. What reasons can you think for employers to provide at-work wellness
programs such as exercise programs, fitness centers, and health counseling?
Which reasons are ethical reasons and which are economic?
The ethical reason for employers to provide at-work wellness programs is that
wellness programs reduce elevated health risks. Employees will be able to adopt
healthy behaviors through any good wellness program. Unhealthy diets and lack of
physical activity cause elevated blood glucose, high blood cholesterol, and high blood
pressure. Eating and exercising are behaviors. A randomized clinical trial showed that
those who maintained healthy behaviors experience lower health risks for six weeks,
six months, 12 months, and even out to 18 months after this program began.
Therefore, comprehensive wellness programs will have a significant impact on
elevated health risks. 
Next, the ethical reason for employers to provide at-work wellness programs is
that wellness programs build and help sustain high employee morale. Employees have
high employee morale when they are allowed to be creative, solve problems, feel safe
and appreciated, develop self-esteem, and achieve personal goals and aspirations.
Employees are happy as a result of having a sense of control over their lives and their
health. All of the employees needs, both physical, social, and emotional are achieved
through wellness programs. 
The economic reason for employers to provide at-work wellness programs is
that wellness programs reduce health care costs. The ability of a wellness program to
reduce healthcare costs depends upon how effective the program really is. Having an
occasional lunch and learn about nutrition or just doing a biometric screening will not
be enough to move the healthcare cost needle. Comprehensive worksite wellness
programs that improve employee behaviors will help to reduce healthcare cost. The
savings from program participation will be greater than the actual cost of the
program. 
Besides that, wellness programs improve productivity. Wellness programs that
focus on helping employees have good health behaviors will eventually have an
impact on productivity. Employees are often found to have presenteeism which its
main cause is poor health. By having good health, employees can improve their
productivity by giving their best concentration and effort to work.

Q4. Do you think that work-life balance programs are fair? Should they be
ethically obligatory for employees?
We think that work-life balance programs are fair, provided that the benefits
are enjoyed by all the employees in the organizations. Each of us has our unique
needs, desires, and activities that contribute to our well-being. Through work-life
balance programs, employees feel like they have the time to partake in activities that
energize them, and they feel more balanced at work and home. However, to be fair,
these benefits should be enjoyed by all people. Thus, the work-life balance programs
should be ethically obligatory for employees. For example, nowadays a lot of
multinational companies are taking the issue of  work-life balance very seriously.
They want to make sure that their employees have work-life balance and they believe
that by achieving the balance, they will be working more efficiently and effectively.
However, in most of the audit firms, the employees are loaded with lots of work and
they could not finish their job if they do not work overtime. They cannot even get
enough sleep just to finish the jobs assigned to them, and working overtime has been a
norm for auditors, and with this corporate culture in audit firms, work-life balance can
hardly been achieved. Therefore, we think that work-life balance programs should be
ethically obligatory for employees. 

Q5. Should the specifics of the employment relation always be left to the
workings of the labor market?
In the current generation, people are not fully free from working upon left the
workplace. Employers seem to expect their employees to be available all day long and
some even sending work instruction out of the working hours. Some employers might
evaluate the employees on their overtime working hours and how they are responsive
during non-working hours. Therefore, from our opinion, we think the specifics of the
employment relation should not always be left to the workings of the labor market.
From our point of view, labor market should establish such policies that protect the
minimum requirements for the employees in which an employer should also set a
standard policy and provide basic employee rights to employees no matter their
employees have requested or not. Employers should provide a chance to their
employees to enjoy their life out from working hour in which enjoy a work-life
balance working environment. Employee rights are important as it would offer
protection of important human interests within the context of a situation in which
those interests are jeopardized by the necessity of work. A basic employee rights such
as provide at least one rest day per week would give a chance to the employee to
recharge and subsequently contribute more efficiently and effectively into the work.
There will be a win-win situation where the employee dissatisfaction can be avoided
and also improve the company's performance.
However, an excessive demand for workplace flexibility should be negotiated
between the employer and employee. If an employee demand for  a greater workplace
flexibility, then the employee should expect a lower salaries and benefits or
promotion opportunities in return.

Chapter 6

Chapter 7
Q1. Who was harmed when gatekeepers failed in their duties? For example, who
was harmed by misvaluing of subprime mortgages? Who benefited?
 Gatekeepers’ duties are to ensure that those who enter into the marketplace are
playing by the rules and conforming to the very conditions that ensure the market
functions as it ought. For example, auditors verify a company’s financial statements
so that investor’s decisions are free from fraud and deception. Analysts evaluate a
company’s financial prospects or creditworthiness so that banks and investors can
make informed decisions. Attorneys function to ensure that decisions and transactions
conform to the law.
When gatekeepers failed in their duties, the parties who was harmed include
investors, public users, board of directors, employees of the companies, and also to
the society and economy. Investors and public users which depends on the
gatekeepers’ work and professional opinion to make decisions will be harmed if
gatekeepers failed in their duties to provide the correct information. Besides, the
board of directors and employees of the company who do not done anything wrong
but have to suffer the consequences of the failure of gatekeepers were also harmed.
They may lose their jobs and source of income due to the gatekeeper’s failure. The
society will also be harmed as they will start to have doubt on gatekeepers’ work after
some failure happened. The society does not know who to rely on and the public will
be in chaos and an economic downturn could possibly happen.
By misvaluing of subprime mortgages, the industry was harmed. The failure
of gatekeepers in the financial industry to fulfill their responsibilities was one of the
factors that lead to the collapse of the subprime mortgages industry. As a result, the
economy was badly affected, the housing bubble had burst and took the entire
economy with it. Besides, the homeowners and the shareholders of banks that carried
the mortgages was also harmed. Homeowners were paying large amounts of money to
mortgage holders and could not keep up with the payments, so they lost their homes
after investing a lot of money into them. Banks that could not get the payments from
homeowners cut earnings and the shareholders may lose their dividends. The
mortgage brokers and real estate people were paid and they probably were ultimately
the only ones who benefited. 

Q2.What strategies are available for requiring professionals to fulfil their

professional duties when these run counter to the interests of their employers?
Professionals should understand that there are things that we should or should
not do, regardless of the consequences. If the employer’s interest cause harm to the
stakeholders, professionals should hold on to their responsibilities as a gatekeeper.
Professionals should be taught that they owe particular duties and responsibilities to
the public as well besides their employers.  Therefore, it is important to have them
learning ethics in each of their study fields in order to fulfil their duties as a
professionals.
There should be a standard holds that all professionals should be held to a
fiduciary standard and require them to provide their advice and decisions be made in
the ‘best interests’ of the clients. Indeed, both law and ethics hold that the professional
to special fiduciary duties in which the interest of the client must be given priority
over the interests of the professional. Hence, regulatory and laws should be formed in
order for the professionals to obey to their code of conduct. Regulatory somehow
form a particular line where some acts are prohibited although it will conflict with the
interests of their employers and themselves. Legal protection also provide a shield for
the professionals from the conflicts of interests.
Q3. What difference do you see between the fiduciary standard and the
suitability standard? Is one more ethical than another?
The difference between the fiduciary and suitability standard is the importancy
of client’s interest in making financial advice or investment decision. Under fiduciary
standard, it holds that client’s interest should be put as financial advisor’s priority
when making their advice and investment decision. In other words, the advisors must
place their interests below that of their clients and act in the “best interest” of their
clients. For example, advisors cannot provide misleading information to persuade
their clients to buy the financial plan that can generate higher commission for
themselves or their investment firms. On the other hand, suitability standard states
that financial advice and investment decision must be “suitable” for the client’s
interest and needs. The standard seems less protective of client’s interest because the
advice will still be legal and ethical, even if other investments might be better or even
the advisor earns commision on one and not the other.
In our opinion, we think that the fiduciary standard is more ethical than the
other one, which is suitability standard. The fiduciary standard can make sure that the
advisors are carrying out their fiduciary duties professionally and meet the client’s
best interest, rather than thinking of obtaining maximum commission when providing
advice. Such action would be considered unethical because one should not fulfill their
greediness through the professional knowledge they have. On the other side, the act of
maximizing commission by providing misleading information would flourish easily
under the suitability standard as the standard is loose in protecting the interest of
clients. In the worst situation, the client probably has no idea that they are not given
advice that put their own interests first, which may indirectly violated the right of a
client to receive accurate information to make their decision.

Q4. Should a principle of "buyer beware" be the standard in the financial

advisory and financial services industries? Why or why not?
From our point of view, we think that "buyer beware" should be the standard in the
financial advisory and financial services industries. The professional as a gatekeeper
is responsible to provide accurate advice and information to the public user. The
public user should be well informed about the conflict of interest of the financial
advisor and the accuracy on the advice and information given.
The government should establish a standard of buyer beware to make sure the
financial advisor do not violate their professional for their personal interest. Intention
to get a commission from the selling company and provide inaccurate information to
public user can be considered as scam and cause harm to others in which the
professional may found guilty. Establishing a standard of buyer beware would reduce
the scam and subsequently reduce the harm that may happen to the society.
Beside that, a company should plan their strategy to reduce the conflict of interest of
the financial advisory. They should provide the accurate information to the user
despite of obtaining huge profit by providing fake information. The advisor should
perform their professional ethically instead of using the professional knowledge to
fulfill their greedy and selfishness.

Q5. In what ways are financial advisors like doctors and lawyers? In what ways
do they differ?
 Financial advisors like doctors in such a way that these professionals have a
responsibility to offer advice and make decisions that are in the best interests of their
clients, who generally lack the knowledge and expertise needed to make wise health
decisions themselves. Financial advisors like doctors in such a way that they have
specialized knowledge and expertise that their clients rely on. Besides that, financial
advisors like doctors in such a way that they are prohibited from receiving a
commission from financial firms when they steer clients into a particular product the
firm is selling. However, financial advisors and doctors differ in such a way that
financial advisors don’t generally ascribe to the Hippocratic oath.
Financial advisors like lawyers in such a way that both of them are held to
special fiduciary duties in which the interests of the client must be given priority over
the interests of the professional. Both of them also function as economic
“gatekeepers” or “watchdogs”. This gatekeeper function ensures that those who enter
into the marketplace are playing by the rules and conforming to the conditions that
ensure the market functions as it ought. However, they differ in such a way that
financial advisors offer financial advices while lawyers offer legal advices. 

Chapter 8
Q1. What public policy approach would be most reasonable to protect
consumers from harmful products? Should government regulate the sale of high-
sugar and high-fat food and beverages? How might market and economic forces
play a role in protecting consumers?
There should be a strengthened and developed national legislation in order to
provide clearer rules and guidance for manufacturer on how to develop safe products.
Use of OECD, United National Guidelines for Consumers Protection (UNGCP) and
International Standard Organisation (ISO) standard helps to define good practice
could help government and businesses in meeting global markets challenge aside
from keeping consumers protected from harmful products. Mandatory safety
requirement in the legislative framework has to be updated in order to protect
consumers. It is also important for authorities to enhance their responds and
surveillance towards potentially dangerous and risky products to minimize the risk
and able to deal with it appropriately. In this case, the consumption of fast food and
opioid which cause obesity epidemic and opioid addiction should be monitored as it
had incurred great social costs.
Yes, government should be constantly regulating the sale of high-sugar and
high-fat food and beverages.  Since sellers are always profit-driven and tend to
develop their products to suit the majorities’ desires, hence, government should take a
role in regulating the products. High-sugar and high-fat food and beverages in the
case study had caused nearly 30 percent of the global population to suffer from
obesity epidemic, and this disease is a killer as it leads to a variety of serious health
risks. Government should enforce the regulation in order to decrease the consumption
of these risky foods among the people. For instance, government could incur higher
tax in fast food restaurants and in high-fat and high-sugar products. This would
eventually reduce consumers’ ability to purchase unhealthy food as previous.
Government could also implement a price floor for the fast food so that fast food
restaurants are unable to promote their fast food at a low price to attract customers.
 Market and economic could protect consumers by alternating the way
marketing was presented to the consumers and potential consumers. Apparently,
marketing is done in a way that it encourages the consumption of a product but tends
to minimize the harmful effects brought by it. Hence, marketers should provide
adequate information so that consumers know the products they are buying instead of
downplaying the potential side effects of the products. Marketing also should not be
done in a way that causes impulse buying and exploits on the consumers. For
example, the companies selling opioid are exploiting their consumers by implying
anxiety in order to sell unnecessary drugs while fast food restaurants are marketing
their products in a cheap and big package which attracts consumers to spend money. 
Besides that, medical professionals should play a role as a gatekeeper. They should
only prescribe the opioid as necessary instead of over providing it or simply provide
to the patients. People who wants to buy and at the same time, there are someone who
is willing to sell does not always mean that it is ethically legitimate. Fast food
restaurants and pharmaceutical manufacturers and pharmacies should understand what
and who are being threatened by marketing and selling these products as it incurred a
significant social cost.

Q2. What responsibilities do fast-food restaurants and soft-drink manufacturers

have for the quality of food and drinks that they sell? Do they have any
responsibility for the obesity epidemic? Why or why not? Do these foods ‘cause’
obesity?
The fast-food restaurants and soft-drink manufacturers have the same
responsibilities with others which categorised in food and beverage industry. Among
the responsibilities for food and beverage industry, especially the health and safety of
the food and beverage manufactured and provided are the most emphasised. The fast-
food restaurants and soft-drink manufacturers should ensure the quality of food and
drinks that they sell are complied to the standard set by regulation bodies. 
In this case, even though the fast foods and soft drinks are criticized as high-
calorie and low-nutrition products which easily make consumers exceed their daily
nutrition requirements, but they are not violating the required standard on the ground.
On the legality perspective, they are not liable for any wrongdoing. However, from an
ethical perspective, the industry are held responsible, on certain basis, for providing
such unhealthy food and beverage that indirectly lead to obesity epidemic.
The industry are held responsible for obesity on certain basis in which the
foods might not be the main cause of obesity. The causes might be various reasons
such as genetics, poor nutrition, diseases, lack of exercise and a sedentary lifestyle.
However, in our opinion, the companies are not doing business on the utilitarianism
ground in which the business decisions are not increasing the overall good in society.
The companies engaged in the industry hire experts in nutrition, human
physiology, neuropsychology, and chemistry, who have knowledge in the human
nutrition requirement and also the effects of taking high-calorie and low-nutrition
food and beverage. Therefore, we could assure that the companies are well-
acknowledged of the consequences of consumers who taking of their products.
Meanwhile, the companies also hire experts in advertising and promoting their
products which especially targeting young people, they are seems as advertising and
promoting an unhealthy products to the public without considering the impacts to the
society. 
 Nowadays the fast-food restaurant are trend as it provide convenience to
public which provide the meals in a very short time. However, even if there is a
market for the product, the companies should consider if it actually does provide
benefits either to those who consume it or to the wider society. In fact, the product
does no in itself imply that the product is good even if there is a market for it.

Q3. Is obesity and opioid addiction the sole responsibility of the individuals who
choose to eat unhealthy foods or use opioids? Why or why not?
In our opinion, obesity and opioid addiction are not the sole responsibility of
the individuals who choose to eat unhealthy foods or use opioids. In part, caveat
emptor assumes that consumers adequately understand and judge products so that
they can reasonably be expected to protect themselves. However, consumers such as
the individuals who choose to eat unhealthy foods or use opioids don’t always
understand products fully and they are not always free to choose not to purchase some
things. While the individuals are responsible for harmful consequences, the food and
beverage industry, including the fast-food industry, should be held liable for the
increasing obesity rates and the corresponding health problems associated with
obesity. The fact that almost 75 percent of the food sold in supermarkets contain
added sugars has worsen the obesity rate. Furthermore, many fast-food restaurants
promote low-priced “super-sized” options, especially for high profit-margin fries and
soft drinks, thereby increasing calorie, fat, and sugar content even further. Next,
knowing that added sugars, high-fat, high-calorie, and high-salt foods contribute to
obesity and other health problems, companies nevertheless aggressively promote and
market them to consumers and often target their ads particularly at young consumers. 
Even if there is a market for the product, companies should consider if it
actually does provide benefits either to those who consume it or to the wider society.
The fact that there might be a market for a product does not in itself imply that the
product is good. There is undoubtedly a market for high-fat, high-sugar, high-sodium
food products, especially if they are heavily promoted and priced low. But a
responsible business should also ask about the foreseeable longer term and wider
social consequences.
Speaking of the opioids abuse, both pharmaceutical companies and
distribution companies have played in the great increase in opioid use and abuse. The
pharmaceutical industry knows that their opioid products are addictive. Yet, they
informed medical prescribers that these drugs were not addictive. Also during the
1990s, the U.S federal government should also be held responsible for their action of
relaxing regulations and allowing direct to consumer advertising for prescription
drugs. Evidence also shows that the pharmaceutical industry spends more money
marketing their drugs than they do on research and development of new drugs. This
has proven to consumers that their profit maximization motive overrides the
consumers’ interest. Besides that, while the distribution companies have a legal
responsibility to report about pharmacies or medical providers with unusually high
opioid purchases, evidence suggests that these reporting requirements were lax. 
The drug manufacturers, the distributing companies, the health care
professionals, and the pharmacies all serve as gatekeepers and have strong
professional duties to control opioids. Yet, all of these businesses profit from the sale
of opioids and know the full extent of the present drug crisis. Given that they have
earned profits from the sale of opioids and given that the abuse continues despite
widespread efforts to control it, a case could be made that these companies should be
held accountable for at least some of the costs of the opioid crisis. 

Q4. What responsibilities do pharmaceutical companies, drug distribution

companies and pharmacies have for the opioid epidemic? What responsibilities
do these companies have for knowing about, and therefore taking steps to
prevent, misuse of opioids?
In the case of opioid addiction, it cannot be denied that the role played by the
pharmaceutical industry have significantly influenced the society which then leads to
the arising of the problem. As mentioned in the case, pharmaceutical industry
involves three types of firms, which includes the pharmaceutical companies itself that
design and produce the drugs, drug distribution companies who acts as a middle agent
to transfer the drugs from the manufacturer to the pharmacies and medical office that
eventually sells them directly to consumers. Each of them does hold their respective
responsibilities for the opioid epidemic.
First and foremost, the manufacturer, which is the pharmaceutical companies
itself, have the responsibility to inform the truth to the consumers that the drugs are
addictive so that they are aware of this and take proper usage. In this case, the
pharmaceutical companies have violated this responsibility as they tell the consumers
that the drugs are not additive when actually they are. The pharmaceutical companies
in the case above only think of their own benefits which is to maximize profits by
heavily promoting the new oxycodone and hydrocodone drugs and telling lies that put
consumer’s life in danger. In the context that the companies knowing about the
misuse of opioids, they need to take some initiatives such as providing a proper
guideline on the usage of opioids to prevent overdose of opioids. Also, they should
spread the public awareness on the dangers of misusing prescription drugs and their
roles to report the illegal consumption.
In addition, the drug distribution companies is also liable for the opioid
epidemic. They need to report about pharmacies or medical providers with unusually
high opioid purchases in an honest and strict manner as well as make sure the report
are in compliance with rules and regulations. They should treat the reporting in a
more serious way as the report can be used to track illegal sales or misuse of the
drugs. Authorities could take further actions on the cases and prevent unwanted
situations to be happened. When they happen to know there are misuse of the drugs,
the drug distribution companies should take the responsibility to monitor the purchase
records of their customers and take the initiative to find out the reasons behind an
unusual purchase. The company should stop supplying the drugs to the customers
who are suspected to distribute the opioids for illegal use.
Lastly, the pharmacies who sell the drugs directly to the consumers need to
bear the responsibility for opioids epidemics as well because they act as a main direct
source where the consumers get the drugs from. When they neglect their duties in
filtering their buyers, the difficulty for those who are intended to buy opioids for
illegal reasons will be greatly decreased and hence leads to the opioids epidemics. To
prevent the misuse of opioids, they should function as a gatekeeper properly and
supply the drugs to those who have a proof of medication needs. Otherwise, the drugs
should not be sold to the consumers. 

Q5. An old adage in legal investigations is to “follow the money”. This suggests
that the best way to identify the culprit is to identify the agent who benefits
financially from the harm. Many businesses in the food and beverage industry
profit from high-calorie, unhealthy food and drinks. Many businesses in the
pharmaceutical industry have profited from the significant increase in opioid
sales. Does the fact that a company benefits financially from a social problem
create a responsibility to address the problem? Why or why not?
The fact that a company benefits financially from a social problem does create
a responsibility to address the problem, as this is the corporate social responsibility
that a company has to demonstrate. If the actions carried out by the company will
cause social problems, it has to address the problems caused for sure, even though the
actions will bring financial benefits to the company.
First, embracing socially responsible policies goes a long way for a company
towards attracting and retaining customers, which is essential to its long-term success.
Furthermore, many individuals will gladly pay a premium for goods, knowing that
part of the profits will be channeled towards social causes near and dear to them. In
contrast, if the customers know that the company benefits financially but at the same
time, creating social problems, they would most likely to not buying the products of
the company.
Besides, corporate boards, CEOs, CFOs, and upper business executives care a
lot about the social responsibilities. They are the guardians of companies’ financial
well-being and, ultimately, must bear responsibility for the impact of  social
responsibility on the bottom line. At multiple levels, executives need to justify that the
social responsibility of the company is consistent with the firm’s strategies and that it
is financially sustainable.
However, other groups care as well. Shareholders are acutely concerned with
financial performance and sensitive to possible threats to management’s priorities.
Social activists care because it is in their long-term best interests if companies can
sustain the types of social initiatives that they are advocating. Governmental bodies
also care about the corporate social responsibility because they desire to see whether
companies can deliver social and environmental benefits more cost effectively than
they can through regulatory approaches. Other than that, consumers care as well, as
they want to pass on a better world to their children, and many want their purchasing
to reflect their values.

Chapter 9
Q1. Are you troubled by the fact that so much information about you is available
for purchase? Is personal information about you that is collected by businesses a
commodity that they should be allowed to sell to others? Why or why not?
Yes, we are troubled by the fact that so much information about us is available
for purchase. In this modern society, people are said digital addiction which they are
likely to use digital device anytime and anywhere. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and
similar applications are collecting our personal information day by day. For example,
when we used search engine to check a price of a product, then the advertisement in
the social application such as Facebook and Instagram immediately show us the
similar product with similar functionality with the product that we searched before.
Our browsing history can be said as ‘sold’ by the browser to the advertising and
marketing company to aim us as their target consumer. Other than that, conversation
in social media application, or even our verbal communication that ‘overheard’ by the
phone also been ‘sold’ to those marketing company so that they accurately aim us to
promote their product. All these facts can said as violation of our personal privacy as
the information collected are not go through our consent while also sell to third party,
the marketing company, without any prior information.
From our point of view, personal information about us that collected by
businesses a commodity should not be allowed to sell to others. Privacy is defined as
a right to be ‘left alone’ within a personal zone of solitude and also the right to control
information about oneself. However, in reality, we found that we are losing control
over our own personal information as anyone can access to our personal information
as long as they can afford the price offered by the business collecting our information.
The owner is freely to share his/her personal information, as long as he/she consent to
the information collecting terms and conditions, however, the business use
information collected for the purpose that were never intended by or are unknown to
the consumer should not be allowed in which violating the regulation standard of
personal privacy.
Some may argue that advertising and marketing are not causing harm to
people therefore it could not be a serious matter. However, how can the business that
sell information assure the purpose of purchasing party? The information sold might
be used for illegal purpose which subsequently conduct crime such as scam and
defraud. Therefore, selling of the information is not only violating the personal
privacy but also indirectly causing harm to public via illegal activities that using
information purchased.

Q2. In the Golden Gate killer, case, we recognise that police might be interested
in the personal data collected by companies. Obviously, marketing companies
also have an interest in such data. Who else might have an interest in gaining
access to the personal information collected about you?
From our opinion, we think that a scammer have an interest in gaining access
to the personal information collected about us. They might use the data to conduct
scam and fraud to obtain own benefit. They might conduct identity theft by using the
personal data and cause public financial loss via their bank account or credit card.
Police use the personal data to trace the suspect of the murder cases, which is
using the data in a good way. Marketing companies use the data to advertise and
promote their products which can considered as no harm to public. However, if the
party using personal data for their personal interest in illegal way then the party would
be liable in their abuse of personal information. Therefore, the party collected
information should not provide access or sell the information to third party without
the consent of owner which will reduce the possibility of crime happen.

Q3. Do you believe that a business violates a customer’s privacy by collecting

data on his or her buying habits? His or her Internet search history? Where do
you draw a line between what information a business can rightfully know about
a customer and what would be an invasion of privacy?
I find it acceptable for a business to collect data on our buying habits as long
as they are gathering information that I’ve made public myself or given others
permission to make public. I think it’s fine if they gather information that is already
public or what purchases I make at their store. The reason is that they have an interest
in making money and I have an interest in the success of the store so I can keep
making purchases there. If a business doesn’t collect data on our buying habits, there
will be a problem where there may be something that I would like but the store
doesn’t know and therefore doesn’t offer me, that would be the problem. The benefit
of collecting data on our buying habits is that they can estimate what I’m likely to be
interested in and as such not only bring a product that I’d want to my attention but
they can also offer discounts on a product that they know that I want based on
previous purchases of said product. Basically, I think collecting data on our buying
habits doesn’t so much invade privacy as there is no sensitive information being
passed. 
Next, I find it invading to my privacy that a business collect data on our
Internet search history. Data such as who I am, where I’ve been, who I’ve been
talking to and what I’m interested in shouldn’t be collected without our consent. All
these pieces of information are tied together to create a very detailed profile about us,
and it only gets more detailed. 
The answer for where to draw the line comes down to judgement in how the
information is used. Companies must balance the need to target customers against the
recognition of what crosses the creepy line. For instance, more than three-quarters of
respondents said it would be acceptable if a pharmacy sent them offers for diabetic
products if they had already joined a pharmacy health program and provided personal
health history. Likewise, 72 percent said it would be acceptable if a grocer sent them
recipes based on previous online activity that they agreed could be stored by the
merchant.
Similarly, the acceptability of location-based marketing on mobile also comes
down to how the data is used. For instance, there appears to be a difference between
what consumers welcome in “push” vs. “pull” marketing specifically when it comes
to mobile tracking. Consumers are much more comfortable with pull marketing–when
they agree to share data that is then used to provide at-the-moment services, such as
directions, restaurant recommendations or store locations. However if the same offers
are pushed out to them without being requested, they can be perceived as intrusive.

Q4. Physically following and watching someone repeatedly can be a crime of

stalking. Can there be such a thing as digital stalking? Some retailers have begun
to use face recognition software to identify customers when they first walk into a
store. To do this, of course, they need access to a digitized picture of you. Where
might they get this information? Do you think that it is ethical to use face
recognition software to track someone while shopping?
Yes, as we are living in a modern world surrounded by technologies, digital
stalking does exist nowadays. Basically, digital stalking is also known as
cyberstalking, in which people use the internet or other electronic means to stalk or
gather information of  an individual or organization.  The stalker may be motivated by
a desire to control, intimidate or influence a victim and the person can be an online
stranger or a person whom the target knows. At the same time, they may also be
anonymous and solicit involvement of other people online who do not even know the
target.
Indeed, the retailers need access to a digitized picture of the customer in order
to use face recognition to identify customers when they first walk into a store. In the
world where people tend to share their pictures online, especially in social media, the
retailers can easily get the digitized picture through these online social media.
Another source can be the databases of police mug shots, which are publicly available
from state agencies and are also for sale by private companies. California-based
Vigilant Solutions, for instance, offers a collection of 15 million faces as part of its
facial recognition “solution”. Furthermore, the retailers can get the photos from the
personal photo album application, where the user compiles the photos stored inside
their phone. There can be a rich source for photo database, as typically the application
contains various photos of the person in different poses and situations. 
For me, I think it is not ethical to track someone while shopping because the
software may collect the data that a buyer wishes to keep private as it becomes more
personalized and connected to an individual. In this situation, the retailers have
invaded the privacy of the buyer for not getting consent to collect their personal
information or preferences which they want to maintain private. In addition, in order
to be in any way effective, the system would require storing enormous quantities of
data, which may not be feasible or ethical. Nevertheless, if the retailers inform the
customers about the use of face recognition technology and receive their consent for
doing so, it can be said that the action is considered ethical as the buyer has
knowledge regarding it and approves to provide the information through the system.

Q5. Do you believe that people can become addicted to digital technologies? Do
you believe that online and digital behaviour can be controlled? Marketers have
always relied on insights from psychology to influence human behaviour. How, if
at all, is the use of psychology and neuroscience by digital marketing any
different?
I believe that people can become addicted to digital technologies, as
nowadays, digital addiction is a common phenomena among the society. Digital
addiction refers to a compulsive use of digital technologies. Like drug or alcohol
addiction, digital addicts not only are obsessive in their reliance on their digital habit
but they also experience feelings of depression or anxiety akin to withdrawal
symptoms when the technology is removed. 
I believe that online and digital behaviour can be controlled, by using
psychology and neuroscience. According to critics, the digital marketing industry
intentionally designs online platforms, apps, smartphones, and websites to reinforce
the addictive behaviour. Using research from psychology and neuroscience, this
industry not only is able to control, but also to shape and condition human behaviour.
The sounds of text and email notifications; the timing and scheduling of notifications,
posts, pop-ups, and online ads; and the page design itself are part of a strategy to
attract and keep people engaged. This is done, in part, by exploiting anxiety that some
people feel when they are not online. A notification sound announcing the arrival of a
text or email immediately draws most of us to check our phone. Just as Pavlov’s
famous dog salivated in anticipation of a reward, digital users continuously check
their phones in anticipation of the next text or tweet.

Q6. Do you agree that the more information someone has about you, the better
able he or she will to predict your behaviour? Do you believe that if he or she is
able to predict your behaviour, he or she will be able to control your behaviour?
Yes, I agree that the more information someone as about me, the better able he
or she will to predict my behaviour. People can more or less able to predict the
behaviour of their family and close friends, but not strangers. This is due to the
understanding regarding their interests, motivations, desires, beliefs and so on, people
are more likely to be able to predict what would be their family or friends’ behaviour
or reaction towards some incidents, or how would they make a choice in their life.
Knowing more information about a person helps us understand their habits, culture,
thoughts and their lifestyle. Hence, it would be easier for us to predict one’s behaviour
according to his or her personality and information.
I also do believe that if someone is able to predict my behaviour, he or she will
be able to control my behaviour. When we talk about control, it is one kind of
manipulation. Basically, manipulation is a guide or direct on people’s behaviour, it
does not involve a total control. However, it suggests a process of subtle direction or
management over people. When someone is able to predict others well, he would be
better in manipulating their behaviour. The more he knows about their psychology, he
would be able to use the feeling of guilt, pity, anxiety, pride and others emotions to
manipulate or control others’ behaviour as he could well predicted their behaviour and
use it as a mean to further direct their behaviour towards the results he wanted.
Furthermore, deception is also how a person able to control others. When he learned
more about someone, he would know exactly what to tell and what to hide in order to
guide and subsequently, control their behaviours.

Chapter 10
Q1. What ethical virtues would be reflected in a personal decision to reduce
one’s carbon footprint even if such decisions come with higher economic costs?
Ethical virtues that would be reflected in a personal decision to reduce one’s
carbon footprint even if such decisions come with higher economic costs are the care
for living things, appreciativeness of natural beauty, and moderation in use of natural
resources. These are all examples of environmentally justified virtues. It is an
environmentally justified virtue when a character trait is justified as a virtue at least in
part by environmental goods and values - be they instrumental goods (e.g., natural
resources, ecosystem services, or recreational opportunities), intrinsic values (e.g.,
aesthetic or spiritual values), or inherent worth (i.e., the value of environmental
entities in and of themselves).
A virtue is an environmentally responsive virtue if it is an excellent character
trait whose field of operation includes some aspect of the natural environment.
Wonder toward nature, compassion toward animals, and restraint regarding the use of
natural resources are examples of environmentally responsive virtues. 
Virtues that are productive of environmental ends - that is, that aim at
protecting or promoting environmental goods and values - are environmentally
productive virtues. Ecological sensitivity, temperance regarding material goods, and
perseverance (e.g., in the domain of environmental advocacy) are environmentally
productive virtues. 
Environmentally justified virtues, environmentally responsive virtues, and
environmentally productive virtues are each a (not mutually exclusive) type of
environmental virtue. Because not all environmental virtues are environmentally
responsive virtues, the environmental virtues are not just character traits operative in
natural contexts (e.g., when walking in the woods or studying barnacles). Among the
environmental virtues are traits that make for effective environmental stewards and
advocates (such as trustworthiness, loyalty, and perseverance), as well as traits
operative in our daily lives that are conducive to promoting ecological sustainability
(such as temperance, humility, and far-sightedness) (Welchman 1999; Cafaro 2001a;
Sandler 2007; Treanor 2010).
 As Thoreau and Carson emphasize, environmental virtue is beneficial to its
possessor. On Carson’s view, this is because it opens a person to beneficial
experiences and relationships in nature. The natural environment provides aesthetic
and recreational goods, as well as opportunities to develop physically, intellectually,
morally, and spiritually. However, these goods are more available to some people
than to others. Those who possess traits like wonder, humility, and love experience
nature and relate to it differently than those who are arrogant, lazy, and indifferent to
the natural world. For the former, nature often is a source of nurturing, renewal,
knowledge, and joy; for the latter it is less likely to be so, since they are less likely to
go into nature and explore, study, reflect, and appreciate it.

Q2. What incentives exist for an individual business to move forward greater
reliance on alternative energy such as wind or solar? What are the disincentives?
In this case, government introduced incentives and disincentives for individual
business to move forward greater reliance on alternative energy for local, state, and
federal levels.
In the perspective of incentives, the government provide subsidies, incentives, and tax
deductions to the party that use alternative energy which in line to government policy
to protect environment sustainability. For instance, the Renewable Energy Production
Incentive (REPI) was created by the Energy Policy Act 1992 which to provide
incentive payments for electricity generated and sold by new qualifying renewable
energy facilities that using solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable resources to
generate electricity. The businesses engage their businesses in line with environment
sustainability will have tax benefits or tax credit that reduce their operating costs in
tax.
In the perspective of disincentives, regulation implemented to penalise party that
harmed environment also be part of the disincentives to individual business in using
non-renewable resources. For instance, The Clean Air Act 1970, Federal Water
Pollution Act 1972, and the Endangered Species Act 1973 were disincentives that
purpose to counter with environment problems. Penalty may imposed to the party that
bring negative impact to the environment. In addition, the regulations also placed
burden of compensation to the party who caused harm. By the threat of compensation,
the business may take this as a disincentive to rely on alternative energy.
The policies and subsidies introduced aim to encourage business entity to use
renewable resources such as wind or solar energy.
Q3. Can environmentally responsible business practices be left to the workings
of the marketplace? What market incentives might help sustainable practices?
Are you willing to pay more for a product that confirm to a principle of
sustainability?
Nowadays, environmental issues such as greenhouse gas emission and climate
change have become a serious issue that should not be neglected. In this context.
businesses cannot run away from their responsibilities as most of their business
activities contribute both directly and indirectly to the said issue. Hence, the
environmentally responsible business practices cannot be left to the workings of the
marketplace. Businesses themselves should take initiative to undertake those activities
that do not harm the environment and sustainable in nature. The issues regarding the
environment will get worse if businesses do not realise their responsibility and roles
in preserving the environment. There are numerous business practices that can be
improved to be sustainable such as finance solar or wind generation on-site and use
biodegradable materials in their products packaging.
In order to help sustainability, market incentives can be a good way to achieve
the goal. As defined, market incentives involve the use of prizes and rewards to
advertise the product, or in other words, the tactics used to encourage people to buy it.
The market incentives that might help sustainability practices would be to improve the
quality of the products, which is not only sustainable but durable as well. If a
product’s quality is good enough, durable and long lasting, the consumers would be
willing to pay a little more to buy the products. When there is getting more people
who are willing to buy the products made under sustainable practices, it could
generate more income to the business resulting from the increased demand.
Subsequently, the producer could try to make it more affordable to everyone and put
more efforts in sustainability business practices.
As a consumer, I would be willing to pay a bit more for the products that are
reusable or recyclable instead of the products that are not friendly to the environment.
As a human being, we do have a responsibility to preserve and conserve the
environment that we are living in. What we can do individually seems to have too
little impact to the environment as a whole, but a little could also make a difference
when we count them together. Buying sustainable products would be one of the
simplest things that we managed to do to contribute to the sustainability practice.
Other than that, the simple action could also give a sense of acknowledgement and
encouragement to the businesses who actively involve themselves in environmentally
responsible business practices.

Q4. What responsibilities, if any, do we have to future generations? How might

these responsibilities change contemporary business? Are future people
stakeholders in the decisions of current business managers?
We have responsibilities to future generations. First, we must conserve the
natural environment that we are enjoying presently. This means conserving the
diversity of the natural and cultural resource base, so that we do not unduly restrict the
options available to future generations in solving their problems and satisfying their
own values. It does not necessarily mean maximizing diversity, for this might be
inconsistent with maintaining robustness. Future generations are entitled to diversity
comparable to that which has been enjoyed by our generations. 
Second, we have a responsibility to maintain the quality of the planet so that it
is passed onto future generations in a condition no worse than that in which it was
received by us from our previous generation. Each generation should be entitled to
quality comparable to that enjoyed by previous generations, or in other words, we
should conserve the quality of the environment.
Third, we are responsible to provide our future generations with equitable
rights of access to the legacy of our generation and conserve this access for them.
While we should encourage equality among generations, we should neither authorize
the present generation to exploit resources to the exclusion of future generations, nor
impose unreasonable burdens on the present generation to meet indeterminate future
needs. Second, no principle should require us to predict the values of future
generations. Rather, we should be provided with sufficient flexibility to achieve our
own goals according to our own values. Finally, the equitable rights must be shared
by different cultural traditions, and must be generally acceptable to different
economic and political systems.
 Due to this responsibility, contemporary business has to make changes. First,
the productivity of natural resources must and can be dramatically increased. This
constitutes a further development of what is sometimes called eco-efficiency. A
second principle called biomimicry requires that business be redesigned to model
biological processes. By-products formerly lost as waste and pollution must be
eliminated, reintegrated into the production process, or returned as a benign or
beneficial product to the biosphere. Third, traditional models of business as a
producer of goods should be replaced with a model of business as a  provider of
services. Finally, business must reinvest in natural capital. Traditional economic
models have ignored the origin of natural capital, and they have neglected to include
reinvestment in natural capital as part of prudent business practice. An environmental
responsible business must address this shortcoming. 
Today, supporters of the environment assert that government has both a right
and an obligation to ensure that businesses do not overuse any resource, and to
mandate adequate environmental protection when doing so. In addition, some form of
fee may be collected for using up a natural resource, such as severance taxes imposed
on the removal of nonrenewable resources like oil and gas, or deposits required for
possible cleanup costs after projects have been abandoned. As part of the growing
acceptance of the concept of earth justice, several nonprofit educational organizations
and NGOs have become active in both lobbying and environmental litigation. One
such organization is the Center for Earth Jurisprudence (housed at the Barry School of
Law in Orlando), a nonprofit group that conducts research in this area.
Lastly, future people are stakeholders in the decisions of current business
managers. Current business managers do have an obligation to future generations to
ensure that we leave a world in which they can survive in. The least we can do is
leave a world similar to the one we inherited but ideally, a better world because of the
technology we now have that can help us leave a better legacy of sustainability.
Contemporary business may have to do at least their “moral minimum” if not more
than that to ensure that future generations are not robbed of environmental treasures
that our generations were able to enjoy. It is evident that future people are
stakeholders in the decisions of current business managers because their actions could
very well carry on into generations to come and whether they be good or bad, those
actions affect future generations

Chapter 11
Q1. Attorney General Sessions claimed that the Civil Rights Act prohibits
discrimination that is based on the biological categories of male and female. Why
should these categories be subject to government regulation? Do you think that
discrimination based on any other biological (or genetic) category should be
illegal?
Biological category of male and female should be subject to government
regulation because it is important to provide an equal and fair opportunity as well as a
discrimination free workplace and living society. All individuals deserve equal moral
standing. Individuals ought not to be denied equal employment opportunities based on
such irrelevant factors as race, colour, religion, sex or national origin. The behaviour
of sexual harassment has begun to be understood as a denial of equal opportunity both
legally and philosophically. One should not be harassed in the workplace and interfere
with his or her ability to work. Business fulfils its responsibility as long as it does not
do what is wrong, therefore it is important for government to subject those categories
to regulation as a guidance for business manager.
Yes, any discrimination based on any other biological or genetic category
should be illegal. According to Aristotle, treating equals equally was as much a basic
principle of logic as it was of ethics. Every individual possesses an equal inherent and
inviolable dignity. There can also be serious barriers to women in the workplace who
do not involve sexuality. The discriminatory treatment that is based on animosity
toward women rather than sexual desire should be the paradigmatic case of unjust
discrimination. The case study show that the construction industry are gender-based
discrimination that is not of a “sexual nature”. Based on Damore’s claim, insulted on
gender stereotypes instead of biological sex or sexuality. Those sexual harassment,
assault and intimidation are some of the unfair barrier for women and nowadays, men
too, in the workplace. Serious coercion or extortion is unethical and sometimes illegal
but it also need not be based on biological or genetic category. 

Q2. Employers discriminate against job applicants and employees all the time.
For example, employers regularly discriminate because of grade point averages,
college attended, dress, demeanor and interview skills. What exactly is ethically
wrong with workplace discrimination “because of sex”? Why is discrimination
“because of sex” (or race, or religion) different?
Sex discrimination involves treating someone unfavourably because of the
person’s sex, whether they are applying job or as a current employee. This kind of
discrimination is ethically wrong in the workplace because each individual deserves
equal treatment and moral standing as have been defended in major ethical theories.
Managers should make hiring decisions based on the abilitility of the candidate to
perform a task efficiently and skillfully instead of judgement through other aspects
which are not related to the job qualification. Employer could discriminate employees
based on their technical skills or job experience, as long as the basis of the
discrimination is based on job-relevant critiria. Such discrimination is ethical and
acceptable for employer to choose the most qualified candidate. This is also the point
that makes the discrimination “because of sex”, as well as race and religion different
from other types of discrimination. It is unethical when both job candidates have the
same level of technical skills or experience, but the employer has biased towards the
male candidate with the judgement that male is more capable than a female. Women
nowadays should be judged using the same standard with men and their capability can
never be looked down. Besides, the discrimination against employees based on their
sex, ethnicity or cultural orientation like religions is also strictly forbidden under
federal and state laws in order to protect human rights. Employers should always
encourage the culture of respect towards different genders and races in the workplace
so that the behaviour of discrimination does not exists.

Q3. A hostile workplace is a fact of life for many employees. One’s supervisor
might be mean-spirited, demanding, angry, cantankerous, or bad-tempered. No
laws prohibit hostile work environments. Why is a hostile work environment
based on sex different than one based on the personality of an employer?
 A hostile work environment based on sex is different than one based on the
personality of an employer because it’s discriminatory in nature. Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act (1964) protects employees who are discriminated against based on their
sex, race, color, national origin and religion. 
Besides that, it is severe in a sense that legal action needs to be warranted. A
hostile work environment based on sex may seriously disrupt and negatively affect the
employees work. It may be severe in the sense that it interferes with career progress,
by pushing the employee to avoid the workplace, call in sick or underperform from
stress. 
Next, by the 1980s, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
had established legal guidelines that defined sexual harassment was a form of
discrimination based on sex. The EEOC concluded that sexual harassment in the
workplace had the effect of denying equal opportunity at work and was therefore
discrimination “because of sex”. The EEOC guidelines codified the two types of
illegal sexual harassment that have governed workplace discrimination law since that
time. Quid pro quo harassment occurs when submission to sexual favors is made a
condition for employment. Hostile work environment occurs when the overall
workplace environment is so pervaded with sexual harassment and intimidation that it
creates an unfair barrier for women in the workplace. 
Q4. Some employers use threats to get employees to behave as they want, as
when an employee is told to do something or face being fired. How is quid pro
quo sexual harassment different from these other threats.
Quid pro quo sexual harassment is a kind of harassment that requires someone
in a position of power to offer the other one something in return for a sexual favour of
their choosing. For example, a manager might offer a highly-prized deal for an
employee which is contingent upon some kind of sexual favour in return. Even if the
manager doesn’t explicitly lay out those terms, they can sometimes make it clear that
the employee’s success depends upon their compliance. The person who is in power is
able to offer benefits and incentives so it can be easier for him or her to get away with
this behaviour. This type of harassment is effective as the victim would feel at risk of
losing opportunities and being offered negative consequences. Once a sexual
harassment claim has been made, it is then up to the employer to prove that the
incident didn’t happen as opposed to the victim proving it did, according to the legal
system. Compensation for this harassment includes wages, benefits or employment
lost due to the harassment, damages for emotional distress, and even punitive
damages if the harassment was severe and entered into the physical.
A hostile environment in the workplace is characterized by severe or
pervasive, distracting behavior that is frequent and unwanted which affects
employment and performance. It includes recurring unwanted and inappropriate
sexual comments, sexual advances, quid pro quo-like requests and more based on sex
and gender. And the thing about hostile working environments is that the sexual
comments and advances don’t necessarily have to be about you. What makes a hostile
working environment is behavior that makes people feel uncomfortable and are of a
sexual nature. This can include lewd jokes or obscene material being brought into the
office, asking repeatedly for dates and getting in the way physically of others on
purpose. Unlike with quid pro quo sexual harassment, hostile work environment
sexual harassment needs to be consistent or pervasive. It cannot be one isolated
incident of unwanted or uncomfortable behavior. There also doesn’t need to be any
favors or contingencies involved with hostile work environment sexual harassment.
It’s trickier to prove hostile environment harassment because it is considered the fault
of the employer if the behavior continues. Therefore, it must be proven that this
behavior was of a harassing nature, but also that the employer knew and didn’t do
enough to discontinue the behavior.
In short, quid pro quo sexual harassment is when an employer or person of
power makes employment, benefits or other perks contingent on sexual favors. It’s a
supervisor suggesting you should go on a date with him if you want to be picked for
the next big project. Hostile work environment sexual harassment is when other
employees — either above you or not — make uncomfortable or sexual comments,
jokes or perform actions that create an intimidating and hostile environment. In the
case study, hostile work environment occurs when the overall workplace environment
is so pervaded with sexual harassment and intimidation that it creates an unfair barrier
for women in the workplace. For example, women being perceived as not “feminine”
enough and they are unacceptable in leadership role at construction site. They are
harassed by vulgar and crude although not sexually harassed.

Q5. How is discrimination based on sex different from, and similar to,
discrimination based on gender? Assume the interpretation of “because of sex”
adopted by Attorney General Sessions and evaluate James Damore’s reasoning.
Would such discrimination violate the principle that employers should not
discriminate “because of sex”?
U.S Attorney General Jeff Sessions concluded that sex discrimination is different
from gender discrimination in which the word ‘sex’ refers to ‘biologically male or
female’ and the latter including transgender status. The session concluded that the law
governing sex discrimination does not apply to gender discrimination. For instance, a
transgender worker who being discriminated would not be protected by the law as
transgender is not covered in ‘discrimination based on sex’ since the transgender is
not biologically match with its original definition. However, the similarity of both
discrimination can be shown by their contribution to harassment, unequal treatment,
and violence.
Assume the interpretation of ‘because of sex’ adopted by Attorney General Sessions,
which the Civil Rights Act 1964 against sex discrimination does not apply to
discrimination based on gender, James Damore’s reasoning is only based on his view
on biological male or female in which not including the transgender and others that
are not in category of ‘biologically male or female’. The reasoning is not
comprehensive as James is concluding a person’s ability from the view of their
sexuality. A person’s ability would be affected by environment, culture, and education
level etc. James’s reasoning is only valid if there are only two kinds of person in
workplace which are typically male or female as James said.
From our point of view, such discrimination violated the principle that employers
should not discriminate ‘because of sex’. Every worker should not be ‘legally’
discriminated even though he/she is a transgender who are not covered in the law of
‘sex discrimination’. Equal treatment should be provided to every worker in which
they have the right to enjoy basic human right to not to be discriminated because of
their gender.
Q6. Is discrimination against gay or lesbian job applicant discrimination
“because of sex”? Is discrimination against a transgender job applicant
discrimination “because of sex”?
We think that discrimination against gay or lesbian or a transgender job
applicant is discrimination “because of sex”. Although Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 does not explicitly include sexual orientation or gender identity, the
EEOC and courts have said that sex discrimination includes discrimination based on
an applicant or employee's gender identity or sexual orientation. Title VII applies to
all private sector and state or local government employers with at least 15 employees.
Applicants and civilian employees of federal government agencies also have rights
against LGBT discrimination under Title VII, and also Executive Order 11478, as
amended. 
Discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender, is by
definition discrimination based on sex, and violates Title VII. Macy v. Department of
Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 20, 2012), transgender discrimination
is sex discrimination in violation of Title VII because it involves non-conformance
with gender norms and stereotypes, or based on a plain interpretation of the statutory
language prohibiting discrimination because of sex. Title VII is violated where an
employer denies an employee equal access to a common restroom corresponding to
the employee's gender identity, or harasses an employee because of a gender
transition, such as by intentionally and persistently failing to use the name and gender
pronouns corresponding to the employee's gender identity as communicated to
management and employees.