Making such a decision, however, wasn’t easy because the decision would have far-reaching consequences on both the Solidarity Fund and the Gildan Company.
This paper discusses and analysis the ethical dilemma that the Solidarity Fund pension scheme, a large pension fund operated by the Quebec federation of labour (QFL), finds itself in following gross misconduct by one of the Companies that the Solidarity fund had heavily invested in. In this case, Gildan Activewear, a Company in which Solidarity fund had heavily invested in was accused of an array of business misconduct ranging from overworking and underpaying workers, excessively high production quotas, and unconducive working environments. Due to the fact the Solidarity Fund had heavily invested in Gildan Activewear and, also, given the fact that the Gildan Activewear investment was the most lucrative investment for the Solidarity Fund, the management of the Solidarity found themselves in a real dilemma in deciding the best course of action to take in response to the Gildan Activewear’s unethical business misconduct.
The Solidarity Fund was founded in 1983 by the Quebec federation of labour with the aim of investing its members’ savings in the local Companies. The Solidarity Fund Pension scheme had two core goals. The first goal of the Solidarity Fund was to democratize access to professionally managed retirements accounts, and the second goal was to support jobs creation and growth in Quebec, either through investment in long term and medium sized local companies or by investing in outside companies whose activities were beneficial to the Quebec province.In selecting investment partners, the Solidarity Fund used nonfinancial criteria; the Solidarity Fund sought to invest with the Companies that had conducive working conditions, positive relations with local communities, and commitment to environmental responsibility. Before investing in a Company, therefore, the