logo

Business Ethics and Sustainability Reflection Introduction

   

Added on  2020-03-16

6 Pages1906 Words158 Views
UNIT:NAME:DATE:

ReflectionIntroductionThe following write up is my reflection on business ethics and sustainability. This will involve reflecting on two case studies and analysis from diagnostic ethical tools of analyzing personal decisions. The reflection contains self evaluation and the decisions that I would take when faced with different situation. Business ethics and sustainability subject have equipped me with severalskills, knowledge, and change of attitudes when making decision in an organization. The subject has increased self awareness on making decisions that have impact on society, environment, and employees. I have been able to define the concepts of morality, ethics, and values. This has enabled understanding characteristics of moral standard and situation where n individual or an organization can be held accountable to their actions (Carroll, & Buchholtz, 2014). I have been also able to understand concepts of professionalism in relation to management. This has increased my knowledge and skills in making decisions that are ethical. It has also changed my attitude towards ethics, morals, and values when making decisions. Reflection on “The Gold and Diamond Watch” case studyFrom this case study, I made several decision rating different individuals decisions from least objectionable of 1 to most objectionable of 6. First, I rated Ryan at 5. Ryan was at the centre of the actions that were in the case study. He made the decision to give bribe to Abdul in order to get a government deal. Ryan consulted his boss who advised not take the bribe but his close friend Angus give him encouraged him to get go ahead and give a bribe. The decision to give a give a bribe to customer in order to buy from a certain organization is an unethical. Ryan also didnot take the advice of h9is boss and went ahead to bribe. Ryan was not honesty in his actions. Therefore, Ryan compromised the values and morals that are generally accepted. Secondly, I ranked Abdul at the most objectionable at 6. Abdul is the one whose decision to bribe started dragged other characters to the phenomenon. Abdul convinced Ryan that he would connect him to a government deal. He inquired a gold watch worth $10000 in return that led Ryan to lying so that he can get the deal through Abdul. Abdul actions were against the society norms because corruption is unacceptable in the society because it immoral. Thirdly, I ranked Charles at number1 as the least objective. Charles was the Ryan’s boss and was against bribery to get preference

from a customer. Charles advised Ryan not to give Abdul $ 10000 gold watch to get connection to a government deal. Therefore, Charles made an ethical decision and showed integrity in his position in the company (Groves, & LaRocca, 2011). Fourth, I ranked Angus at number 4. Angusencouraged Ryan to go ahead and buy the watch in order to secure the deal. Angus decision to encourage Ryan to undertake an immoral action was wrong. I ranked Angus at 4 because of the advice that encouraged Ryan to engage in unethical actions. On another account, I ranked Mr. Grey at number 3. Mr. Grey listened to Ryan and trusted his ability to repay the loan even with other pending credits. Mr. Grey was acted unprofessio0nal by allowing Ryan to take another loanwithout first repaying pending credit and failed to question the Ryan action to need funds urgently (Fisher, & Lovell, 2009). Therefore, I ranked Mr. Grey at the middle of the scale because he did might have acted on limited information on what Ryan was up to. Mr. Grey also acted unethical by supporting Ryan and Abdul plans financially. Lastly, I ranked Jane at number 2 in the scale. Jane reported Ryan to the Charles who took action to stop unethical behaviors. Jane did not face Ryan directly but when to report. The reason why I ranked Jane at number 2 to be least objective is because she took action to report to the manager. Reflection from “The Ford Pinto” Case StudyFord used utlitarianism approach to make it decision one manufacturing and allowing Pinto car model to be sold. The approach was consequentialism and the management was interested in final results rather than the impact that the product will have to customers (Ford, & Richardson, 2013). The company focused on maintaining competition in the market. I strongly disagree with the decision that Ford made. The decision was unethical because it lacked fairness. The decision led to death of customers who used the vehicle. The decision was not made in good faith of the final user that led harming customers at the expense of the company getting more sales and becoming more competitive in the market. The top management of Ford, starting with the president, Lee Lacocca should take responsibility of Miss Gillespe death. The decision that the management made led to Miss Gillespe death by allowing selling of a vehicle that they had noticed that it had defects. If the vehicle had met the standards, I could not have exploded after being involved in a road accident that endangered the passengers and the driver in the car. The individual who allowed the progress of commercializing the vehicle were not honest and compromised the integrity of manufacturing vehicles (Woiceshyn, 2011). Therefore, the

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
Reflections on Cases of Business Ethics and Responsibility
|8
|2132
|200

Business Ethics and Business Sustainability
|7
|1492
|139

MGMT 20134 Business Ethics and Sustainability Case Studies
|21
|2200
|406

Business Ethics and Sustainability Case Studies
|24
|2111
|282

Role of Morality and Ethics in Personal and Organisational Decision Making
|12
|2165
|61

Personal Reflection on Decision Making and Responsibility
|19
|1895
|275