Barluado, Carizza Gail

Dinopol, Enrica Marian

12 - ABM BB

CASE ANALYSIS NO. 1

“Thursday Night Dilemma”

DILEMMA NO. 1

Background of the Case

In this situation, it entails the individual to make a decision between pursuing his moral
and ethical stand against cheap, processed, and unhealthy food or promoting a product that
exactly embodies what he is in opposition to. It is also important to note that this individual has a
financial obligation to his familial relationships and the company he is working for pays a hefty
amount of money. Aside from being a dispute between money and integrity, this situation can
also be an example of a conflict of interest, wherein the parties involved have differing and
contrasting interests, and going for one side may leave an opposing effect on the other.

Possible Courses of Action

There are several possible courses of action that can be taken by the individual, whether it
may be in favor of standing with his morals or complying with his job in exchange for the
monetary reward. Such can be found below:
1. Continue to sell the product to the consumers
2. Raise the harmful implications of the product to the company; if efforts are futile
a. Reject the job to market the specific product and request to be transferred to
another project within the company
b. Ultimately resign from the company

Proposed Solution

After evaluating the situation, it is recommended that the individual take course of
action number 2, with options A and B as substitute actions.
 Business organizations must be held accountable for the effects of their products on the
daily lives of their stakeholders, specifically the consumers. The situation shows that the
company was unable to uphold the core principles of accountability and transparency, as they are
also advertising their product with a false narrative. Though it may be argued that it is an
autonomous and consensual choice by the consumers to buy the product, there is a standard
responsibility on the side of the company to ensure safety is being manifested in what they are
selling, or at least otherwise communicate the risks of the product with the customer. The
tendency of negligence by food companies is very high, which is why government involvement
should be enforced to ensure that the products available in the market uphold a standardized
safety criteria. However, as these are beyond the control of the decision maker, or the individual,
it is safe to say that course of action number 2 is best.
It can be seen that this dilemma is heavy for the individual, which is why an automatic
choice between only selling the product or leaving the company should not be pursued. Instead it
is recommended that the individual first lay down his cards and raise the uncomfort in the task
they are giving him, as well as raise the negative implications of the product to the company. For
reasons such as risk of breaching FDA protocols, risk of losing consumer trust, etc., there is still
a possibility to steer the company in a different direction. However, if these efforts are deemed
ineffective as the company is eager to sell the product, the individual can opt to voice a request
to be transferred to a different job description within the company. In this case, it can be
mutually beneficial for the individual and the company. Lastly, if this request cannot be granted
by the company, it is recommended that the individual ultimately resign. Knowing that the
painful history between the individual and unhealthy food is deep, it is unimaginable for the
individual to withstand the given work circumstances.

DILEMMA NO. 2

Background of the Case

The situation of the case displays an individual coming from a background of

undocumented immigrant parents, as they fled to the United States in pursuit of a better life for
their family. In contrast to the individual’s background, her current occupation is being a
speechwriter for the policies of a candidate in the election whose stance on immigration is for the
immediate deportation of illegal immigrants. This candidate’s stance was an abrupt policy
change due to the last resort to salvage the politician’s falling poll numbers. We also see that the
individual has been working extremely hard for this job as it has been a long-time ambition.
With this, she is cornered to make a decision between her pursuit of passion or to stand for her
family’s background.

Possible Courses of Action

Taking into consideration the individuals experience with their pursuit of passion and the
dilemma of standing up for her family, there can be a few courses of action that can be taken,
such as the following:
1. The individual will deliberately continue to write speeches persuading voters to deport
her very own loved ones, and keep the job and the high salary to continue supporting her
family
2. The individual will follow what she believes to be ethically right and resign in order to
stand for her morals

Proposed Solution

Overall, case number 2 involves dealing with an immigration policy which happens to be
an extremely difficult case itself, depending on one's stance. In this scenario there are an array of
perspectives that have to be taken into consideration, starting from the status quo that the United
States stands for proper immigration practices involving the naturalization process, wherein we
also examine the opposite spectrum as to why illegal immigrants continue to pursue and make a
living in this “land of the free.” At first sight, the individual's decision seems to be between
choosing her career or her family. However, in a deeper perspective it actually is making a
choice between what policy she supports and how her decision will affect the future she works so
hard to achieve. One could even consider that her stance on illegal immigration will involve her
moral obligation.
Keeping all of that into perspective, the course of action that we deem best, through
proper consideration, would be course of action number 2, wherein the individual will resign
and take a stand for her morals.
The driving factor of this course of action is the person’s personal ethics, as the scenario
states that she disagrees with the stance of the politician’s immigration policy. This itself is
enough of a reason for her to be unable to continue supporting this politician’s campaign. To
further explain, when an individual is part of a candidate’s core campaign team, they already
have an obligation to 100% support that individual. Seeing as, originally, the individual did
support the policies, she has every right to speak up and draw the line if her morals do not align
with who she supports. Even if this was all part of the political stunt, if it makes her feel
uncomfortable, she more than likely, won’t be able to completely fulfill her duty knowing that
she already has a biased perception. Although, seeing as she is a scriptwriter, she may have the
power to come up with a speech that could be completely beneficial to the politician. Yet, seeing
as it is already contrary to her personal beliefs, this could hinder the politician seeing as the
speech came from an individual coming from a background of undocumented immigrants.
Resigning gives her more allowance to create a proper plan for her future without having to
compromise or be complacent of her beliefs for the sake of someone whom she can’t fully
support.
We do however, recognize the importance of strengthening the immigration systems, but
as an individual, she must do what she can in order to properly support her family and change the
systems in the most beneficial way. We also have to keep in mind that when discussing ethics in
the context of migration, it usually highlights the tension between individuals and nations. These
discussions should always begin and end with the acknowledgement of the humanity of those
who are moving and those who do not move and the reasons involving them. This is rooted from
a much bigger outlook, wherein the individual plays a definite role with her decision of
resigning.

DILEMMA NO. 3

Background of the Case

The case reflects the situation Kiara is involved in, wherein she is conflicted whether or
not to report her Aunt Claudia’s illegal activities to the authorities or to keep quiet for her
family’s sake. It is important to mention that the decision that will be made will not only affect
Kiara and her family, but also every individual who worked in the salon. This case shows the
problem of employees’ reluctance to report unethical behavior, especially since this involves
family - a common moral weakness.

Possible Courses of Action

Considering all sides of the individuals in this dilemma, there are a few courses of action
that can be taken by Kiara, the decision maker of the problem. These are the following:
1. Protect Aunt Claudia and the other people associated with the salon by keeping it quiet
2. Report Aunt Claudia to the police, as a bigger civil service to the clients

Proposed Solution

The course of action that is deemed best for Kiara to take is directly number 2, and this
was determined due to various reasons.
First things first, loyalty to family should not impede the promotion of ethical behavior,
especially if it is at the customers’ expense. There is a reason why family-owned businesses are
more prone to crossing the line of ethical practices, because aside from these being privately-
held and thus being less subject to being caught of fraud, the pressure of familial relationships in
business expect individuals to choose the family’s personal interest over morals. However,
taking aside the family ties Kiara has with Aunt Claudia and seeing her explicitly as an employee
of the business, it is found in Number 18 of the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that “as an
employee of the Company, you are expected to conduct yourself in a manner appropriate for
your work environment, and are also expected to be sensitive to and respectful of the concerns,
values and preferences of others. Whether you are an employee, contractor, supplier or
otherwise a member of your Company family, you are encouraged to promptly report any
practices or actions that you believe to be inappropriate.” In the case of Aunt Claudia’s fraud, it
completely breached all three of the core principles in business operation and stewardship,
namely fairness, accountability, and transparency.
Another angle that prompted course of action number 2 is that judging by the salon’s
record regarding its online ventures, it can be assumed that the fraud committed has been in
action for quite some time now, implying that Aunt Claudia had already garnered a mass of
victims at that point. It can be anticipated that sooner or later, with the help of an accumulated
pile of customer complaints, the illegal business practices would be unveiled on its own without
Kiara’s intervention. This can pose a threat to Kiara, as authorities could link her to the crime
and every other employee in the salon at that. Being in trouble with the law would be of a greater
struggle than being temporarily unemployed, especially when it was suggested that Kiara is
skilled in her craft.
Last but not least, immediately reporting to the authorities than confronting Aunt Claudia
first would be better suited for a few reasons. In that scenario, Aunt Claudia will have the liberty
to deny Kiara’s allegations, but as she will now be aware that someone knows about her
fraudulent practices, she will have time to bury the evidence and completely come clean.
Another factor that was considered for course of action number 2 was Kiara’s safety. The
business associate was mentioned to have been subtly threatening Kiara the next time she saw
him. If Kiara confronts her Aunt Claudia, there can be a possibility that the business associate
would impose physical harm or blackmail on Kiara to keep their illegal acts concealed.