This case is based on an actual memo that aroused a storm of criticism.

What
points in the memo might critics consider to be morally objectionable? Should
moral criticism be directed only to this particular application of cost–benefit
analysis or to the method of cost–benefit itself?

In my opinion, majority of the points in the memo are considered to be morally objectionable. The
points in the memo directly point to the issues that can rise directly impacting an individual’s health. A
vast amount of the criticism should be directly to the method of cost-benefit, rather than the application
of cost-benefit analysis.

On what grounds can Karen's work at the tobacco company be considered ethical
or unethical? Explain whether or not you believe that Karen has made a morally
significant difference and done more good than harm, as she states. Would you
advise Janet to take the job or hold out for something else?

Karen has not made a morally significant difference, despite her stating she has
done more good than harm. This due to the fact that she stated that if she had not
taking up the position there would be individuals marketing products that did not
care about little kids, however Karen is doing the same thing therefore
contradicting her own words. I would advise Janet to not take the job and look for
another job due to the fact that she does not believe in the company’s marketing
strategy. She should wait until she finds something that compels with her morals
and ethics.

Explain whether or not A&A would be acting responsibly in its role as a broker by
allowing the museum to make a poor choice. How can the broker act responsibly
toward the museum while still presenting the inferior insurance bid?

I believe that A&A would not be acting responsible in its role as a broker by allowing
the museum to make a poor choice. As broker it is their responsibility to inform
their clients of all possible bids while explaining the risks associated with them. A&A
needs to explain to the museum that despite Reliable being cheaper and with their
budget it can present a large amount of risk. A&A can also state recommendations
about what they feel is the best.

What, if anything, is really wrong with the practice that Greg has explained? How
could someone criticize Alison's assessment that "nobody is getting hurt, and it all
works out in the end"?

This study source was downloaded by 100000832134979 from CourseHero.com on 02-09-2022 02:38:05 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/83197080/Chapters-3-5docx/
 The practice that Greg has explained is not an effective way to do business, and is
almost built to make mistakes. The system needs to be re-visited and analyzed. If
there were a downfall in business, the current business strategy would result in a
surplus of jars. Alisons statement about the current practice portrays that will be
unethical within the company and compel with those that are.

Chapter Four
What is your interpretation of the company's changes to its internal auditing
procedure? Is this an attempt to shut down further inquiries from the whistle-
blower, or is there reasonable justification for the company's actions? What would
you advise the whistle-blower to do in order to satisfy his or her concerns at this
point?

The recent changes to its internal auditing procedure seem to portray the need to shut down further
inquiries from the whistle-blower. This was due in a way to make sure that the company was always in
control of who had access to which documents at which time. I believe for the whistle-blower to satisfy
their own concerns at this point should contact the company in order to know what is happening.

Why should the Dodd-Frank Act be modified to protect internal whistleblowers like
Khaled Asadi? Why does it only seem to protect those who report wrongdoing to
the SEC? What does this suggest about the perceived value or effectiveness of
companies' internal programs for handling financial wrongdoing?

The Dodd-Frank Act should be modified to protect internal whistleblowers like Khaled Asadi because it
does not protect those that report internally which is unfair. I believe it only protects those that report
their wrongdoing to the SEC since it becomes a bigger legal matter and often has a physical investigation.
The company is not okay with employees reporting wrongdoings happening and wants to keep them
hidden from others.

Chapter Five

What kind of business information is the agency offering to Microsoft, and why
might it be unethical for Rob LeBow to accept the offer? Explain what you would

This study source was downloaded by 100000832134979 from CourseHero.com on 02-09-2022 02:38:05 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/83197080/Chapters-3-5docx/
 advise RobLeBow to do in this situation. What are his options, and how would each
one affect Microsoft's interests? Describe any common interests between Microsoft
and Lotus that Rob should seek to protect.

The agency is offering to market for Microsoft, and trying to grab the attention of
Rob Lebow by explaining that there employees were previously marketing for their
competitors. If Rob were to accept the offer it is considered to very unethical as it is
transparent the agency will use confidential information from competitors in order
to promote Microsoft. Since Lotus has a product called 1-2-3 which is very similar to
Microsoft new product Excel. Rob best option would be to not respond to the offer.

Comment on the actions of all involved parties. To what extent was P&G responsible for the actions of
the intelligence-gathering firm it had hired? Did John Pepper have a moral obligation to inform Unilever
of the situation, or would it have been morally sufficient to handle the situation internally? For what
reasons could Unilever's response be considered ethical?

P&G was responsible for the actions of the intelligence-gathering firm it had hired since they were not
clear about they needed to be done and what line should not be crossed. John Pepper had a moral
obligation to inform Unilever as if they had found out in a different way it could have impacted the way
negatively. Unilever response is considered to be unethical as the P&G had promised not to use the
information gathered.

This study source was downloaded by 100000832134979 from CourseHero.com on 02-09-2022 02:38:05 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/83197080/Chapters-3-5docx/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)