The Ethical Issues in a Business or a Company - Essay Example

? Final Scenario Analysis In the of operating either small or large business, both locally and globally, numerous ethical issues arise from all departments in the business (Halbert & Ingulli, 2011). Most of the ethical issues in a business or a company descend from the human resource department (Halbert & Ingulli, 2011). Ethical issues are decision made or actions taken by a company on varied aspects concerning its operations (Halbert & Ingulli, 2011). Ethical preferences are not judge select issues but they critical conscious aspects that engage humanity reasoning in an organization dictating the adherence of certain rules without compromise (Halbert & Ingulli, 2011). Based on the Global Enterprise, we take an analysis of the case facts and ethical issues concerning the enterprise’s operations (Nakmwil, 2012). In addition, we also take into account the ethical alternatives and recommendations the business has at their disposal in order to survive the legal accusations they have (Nakmwil, 2012). Case facts Global enterprise international (GEI) is a military contractor charged with the responsibility of manufacturing protective body armor, ammunition equipments and armored vehicles that are all useful during military operations (Nakmwil, 2012). The company has employed 140 workers who are all highly paid union technicians, mechanics, union members and Armor workers (Nakmwil, 2012). For the United States military, Global Enterprise International manufactures body flask jackets, night vision riflescopes and armored tank vehicles (Nakmwil, 2012). Contrary to the spelt out international laws and treaties, Global Enterprise International also participates in the manufacturing of land mine explosives (Nakmwil, 2012). The company’s best customers for the illegal land mines products are Afghanistan and Iran (Nakmwil, 2012). Based on these sales, more than half the company’s profits come from these stealthy operations (Nakmwil, 2012). However, none of the Global Enterprise International manufactured products is of the accredited standards. All the products bear flaws and do not meet the required specifications by the customers (Nakmwil, 2012). Despite the large amount of money the company acquires for its body armor munitions device and vehicles, it uses bad and substandard raw materials during manufacturing (Nakmwil, 2012). For instance, the flak jackets do not effectively protect military soldiers as required from personal ammunition (Nakmwil, 2012). In addition, the night vision rifles produced by the company in many cases end up causing severe injuries and deaths to the users while in combat situations (Nakmwil, 2012). Besides, armored vehicles despite having strong sides and tops, the composition comprises solely of a single thin sheet layer emended on the undersides (Nakmwil, 2012). This makes them very vulnerable and weak to IED (Improvised Explosive Device) explosives (Nakmwil, 2012). Despite all these modifications, the inclusion of superior and quality materials in the flak jackets are capable of effectively preventing the unnecessary injuries encountered when utilizing fake products produced by the company (Nakmwil, 2012). However, Global Enterprise International spitefully declines altering their materials because this would cost the company a fortune and probably at the end lose the contract (Nakmwil, 2012). In addition, most of the landmines sold by the company to the Taliban in Afghanistan and Iran are not effective (Nakmwil, 2012). Those who attempted to plant the mines died in the process as they contained faulty switches. Later on, United States military realized numerous flaws characterizing these jackets, night vision rifles and armored vehicles, which it purchased from Global Enterprises International (Nakmwil, 2012). The United States justice department initiated legal investigations and the families of the deceased military members followed suit (Nakmwil, 2012). They also started forming mass actions and filing lawsuits against the concerned company. A fiduciary relationship entails faith and confidence between two parties (Nakmwil, 2012). It is a rapport based on the establishment of confidence by one person to another with the recipient embracing its implications at the highest level (Nakmwil, 2012). However, mere respect for the other individual or general trust is insufficient in creating a fiduciary relationship between the two parties (Nakmwil, 2012). Although the company was capable of paying all the damages caused by varied stakeholders, it decided to terminate their operations in United States. Global Enterprises International top executives concluded that the company could best fulfill its fiduciary duties to its shareholders by closing the company’s production facilities in United States (Nakmwil, 2012). Global enterprises international directors also decided to shift their company’s operations to Brazil, a country that does not relate directly with United States (Nakmwil, 2012). This followed with the decision of relocating some part of their operations to Colombia, a country where the murder of union organizers is often, and unions are not prevalent as United States (Nakmwil, 2012). Global Enterprises International despite planning to relocate from United States, this seems impossible because the company ought to face the music of its actions (Nakmwil, 2012). GEI ought to resolve the legal liabilities it owes the families of the murdered military service members (Nakmwil, 2012). This is because the members died while using ill-fabricated products produced by the enterprise (Nakmwil, 2012). In addition, Global Enterprises International must compensate its workers in the United States plant through protection by a collective agreement issued by United States Labor Department based on the employment laws (Nakmwil, 2012). In addition, Global Enterprises International has over 100 employees whereby under the Plant Operations Closing Act cannot terminate its operations in such a hurry or without informing the workers early as required (Nakmwil, 2012). Laws state that such employees ought to receive a 60 days’ notice before the plant terminates its operations or departs from United States (Nakmwil, 2012). This is a dilemma for the enterprise because such a notice will spark up varied adverse consequences in its operations (Nakmwil, 2012). For instance, this will be a notice to the United States military that it is planning to move its operations out of United States (Nakmwil, 2012). In addition, the exceptionally radical and well-paid UMAW workers will participate in work sabotage practices (Nakmwil, 2012). Besides, the company also fears workers might start leaving on their own wish when the company is not well prepared to terminate operations in United States (Nakmwil, 2012). Another issue is that, suppose Global Enterprises International violates POCA requirements, it stands to lose because the company will face significant pay back obligations to POCA (Nakmwil, 2012). In addition, despite the company complying with POCA’s specification to the letter, the company still faces big loses (Nakmwil, 2012). Workers under the UMAW collective bargaining agreement will get the entitlement of having colossal amount of money meant for compensation in the event of a plant shutdown or mass lay off (Nakmwil, 2012). Ethical Issues Based on Global Enterprises International’s case, the company openly brings out a number of issues pertaining to violation of its required ethical obligations (Halbert & Ingulli, 2011). The company’s ethical misconducts and violations are diverse, for instance, in management, marketing and finance (Nakmwil, 2012). Contrary to its obligation by law, the Company also participates in several dubious and illicit activities to acquire extra cash (Nakmwil, 2012). For instance, despite the international laws and treaties being against the manufacture of landmines, Global Enterprise International still participates greatly in the extraction of this baned product (Nakmwil, 2012). The company illegally exports the unlawful landmines to the Taliban states like Afghanistan and Iran (Nakmwil, 2012). The latter is not only an illegal issue but also an ethical misconduct because the company does not consider the deaths it causes leaving numerous children orphaned (Nakmwil, 2012). The company ignores and goes against its expected fiduciary duties conduct by betraying the respect and trust different shareholders have for the company (Nakmwil, 2012). In addition, it fails utterly in exhibiting the gratitude for the good diplomatic ties given by the United States military services but instead decides selling ill-fabricated military weapons to them (Nakmwil, 2012). Global Enterprises International managers do not take into consideration the significance, value and importance of protecting human life (Nakmwil, 2012). Despite knowing risks associated with the corporation’s products, the company continued endangering US military lives by selling to the state malfunctioning and substandard raw materials meant to its products (Nakmwil, 2012). The flak jackets produced by the company were not effective because they were not capable of protecting military members from staff munitions (Nakmwil, 2012). These managerial assumptions bring about many unforeseen casualties and deaths among the military members (Nakmwil, 2012). In addition, the company could have prevented all the reported injuries and deaths by just adding a simple superior quality material in the flak jackets but intentionally declined (Nakmwil, 2012). Based on the United States military complaints, Global Enterprise International also manufactured night vision rifles that did not meet the required scrutiny and standardization for use by the personnel. Besides, the night vision rifles, the company’s armored vehicles did not attain the needed protective material strength preferred by United States military service (Nakmwil, 2012). This is because, under the external sheets, materials’ composition of the vehicles was a single layered sheet too weak and vulnerable to withstand power and damage let out by the IED (Improvised Explosive Devices) during while undertaking their varied and perilous missions (Nakmwil, 2012). The management team of the organization does not take into consideration the risks they are putting the military service members into at the expense of their selfish monetary interests (Nakmwil, 2012). Another Ethical issue is that of Global Enterprise International’s plan to dupe its workers and the United States military service in its plan to relocate to Brazil and Colombia (Nakmwil, 2012). The Enterprise’s managers bear the obligation of compensating its workers under the UMAW collective bargaining agreement (Nakmwil, 2012). According to the terms of the agreement, in the event of a plant shut down or termination of workers services prior to the correct retirement date, the employees ought to get compensation from the company (Nakmwil, 2012). However, Global Enterprise International managers ended up implementing a dubious and malicious plan to dupe the workers and evade losses (Nakmwil, 2012). The company managers terminated the services of 20 workers without any accusations and offered a handsome early retirement package to 25 other workers, an action which the company could not deny (Nakmwil, 2012). On this account, the company’s total workers reduced to 95 employees. This number legally excludes Global Enterprises International from POCA’s policies (Nakmwil, 2012). In addition, the company’s executives went ahead to file a false bankruptcy protection intended to protect the company from its contractual responsibilities like union contracts (Nakmwil, 2012). Finally, the company got rid of the lawsuits filed by families of injured or killed service members because it was bankrupt and could not participate in compensation of the required schemes (Nakmwil, 2012). The management of the company comprised of unscrupulous people who did anything to fulfill their selfish interests (Nakmwil, 2012). When all these faults were taking place, Global Enterprise International executives busied themselves with establishing of diplomatic ties with Brazil and Colombia (Nakmwil, 2012). In addition, it had already set up factories in the former states and transferred all the assets besides liabilities of the company to Switzerland as well as Brazil (Nakmwil, 2012). This meant that Global Enterprise International retained all its profits at the expense of all other stakeholders (Nakmwil, 2012). This is unethical because the enterprise did not consider the welfare of its shareholders back at the United States (Nakmwil, 2012). Besides many effluent as well as radiations produced by the company and disposing them into the ground waters while undertaking its manufacturing activities, the host states prefer risking the welfare of their citizens and environment in exchange of receiving of military equipments in return (Nakmwil, 2012). In addition, these host states go to the extent of allowing the company to operate contrary to the environment, labor and other business regulations that might not hinder the functioning of the company (Nakmwil, 2012). Alternatives The company should not take for granted the excellent fiduciary duties, which it receives from its stakeholders like the United States defense department by offering them a reliable contract. The company should embrace alternative methods of resolving the manufacture of ill-fabricated products that are amicable. Solutions and the decision reached should be in line with the spelt out moral values and codes of conduct expected of the people in the cooperate scene. Global Enterprise International should cease using materials that are substandard in the fabricating of military equipments (Nakmwil, 2012). It should also include the superior quality material in the flak jackets of the military in order to guarantee their security (Nakmwil, 2012). The Enterprise should follow the legal process in relocating a firm from one market area to another (Nakmwil, 2012). The management has the obligation of compensating all families of the military serving persons whose injuries and death occurred due to the ill products produced by the enterprise (Nakmwil, 2012). References Halbert T. & Ingulli E. (2011). Law and Ethics in the Business Environment, New York: Cengage Learning, Nakmwil. (2012). Global Enterprises, (GEI). StudyMode.com. Retrieved on10Th 2013, from Read More