Ethical Governance: Examining the Deontological Theory and APES110

Ethical governance
Name
Institution
Professor
Course
Date
1

Executive summary
This report contains two sections. The first section describes the volume one Royal
Commissioner report. The report is described in relation to the deontological theory of ethics.
This is can by taking various examples as described by Royal Commissioner Reports and
explaining how that example relates to the deontological theory.
The second part of this reports uses the APES110 to describe the way freedom insurance group,
as defined in the second volume of Royal commissioner final report, initiates an ethical issues to
their clients. This was done by describing the factors and principles as defined by the APES110.
PART ONE
Introduction
This is a class of ethical theories that define that individuals should adhere to their duties in all
the circumstances they are engaged in the process of making the decision where the ethics are
involved (Alexander and Moore, 2007). This defines that individuals should follow their
obligations towards others or the society all becomes upholding one's obligation is described to
be ethically correct. For example, deontology will always maintain and fulfill his or her promises
to the friends and will conduct as per the law. Individuals who abide by the deontological theory
description produces a reliable and a dependable decision as they are based on the personal set
duties (Koehn, 1995).
Deontology has many positive attributes but also it contains some faults. The existence of no
logical basis for deciding a personal duty is an example of a flow that affects the deontology.
2

Discussion
The deontological theory can be used to evaluate and summarize the royal commission report.
This will be done by describing some of the statement from the report.
From the introduction, it is clearly defined that the primary task of the royal commission is
geared towards checking whether any conduct or activities of financial service entities fall below
community standards and expectations (Paquette, Sommerfeldt and Kent, 2015). Relating this to
deontology theory it can be stated that the entities which satisfy society standards and
expectation should be good and conduct their services in the right way. Also from the
introduction part, it is described that the report contains conduct of many entities that have
occurred in many years and have caused loss to many customers and substantial profit to the
entities.it is described that the conducts which have broken the law have fallen short of the kind
of behavior expected from them by the society (Micewski and Troy, 2007). Relating this
description with the deontology comprehension it can be said that the report does not reason out
from the results side but whether the conducts are done by the law.
The observation part of this report satisfies the deontology theory description. The act of services
provided to the customer is said to have been breached whereby the sales becomes all important.
It is defined that those who handled and advised the customers and entities respectively turned
into sellers and the sellers shifted to advisory sectors (O’Neill, 1993). The final report ends up
condemning such conduct and states that it was wrong and discouraging to reward the
misconduct. Under this section of observation, the report does not acknowledge the rewarding
action stating that the reward is issued regardless whether the individual rewarded should have
done what he or she did i.e. the person being rewarded even if has delivered the task accordingly
he or she should not be rewarded if he or she is not entitled to the task. This is a valid description
3

in the report that meets the deontology theory definition as the conduct is judged to have not
observed the law.
A second scenario from the report description that satisfies the deontology theory is the one that
talks about the existence of power imbalance and knowledge between the entities that provide
the product and the consumers (Van Staveren, 2007). According to the law, the consumers
should be educated before a service or a product is offered to him or her. This will allow the
consumer to have enough bargaining knowledge for the product. Bonding this observation with
the theory of deontology, it is clear that the report does not look upon whether the product is sold
but whether the seller and the consumer had the same comprehension on the product. A third
scenario from the observation that exhibits the character nature of the deontology theory, is
whereby the financial entities broke the law and are not held responsible. The report ends up
stating that the misconduct will be completely eroded if only the detected and denounced
misconduct among the entities is justly punished.
Finally, in the report observation part, deontology character is observed on the way the report
reflects on the relation that coexists among the entity, consumers and the intermediary (Micewski
and Troy, 2007). The reports define that the existing relation is not lawful as it opposes on the
side it favors the consumer and the entity expects some interests and favor from the intermediary
of which the intermediary may provide service at his or her own benefits (Mandal, Ponnambath
and Parija, 2016). Such according to the report should not exist as the intermediary, entity and
consumer should fairly consider each other.
The reports state that the primary responsibility for the misconduct rests with those entities that
entertain them. The report does nowhere support any conduct that breaks the law even if it bears
positive product to the entities and consumers. Also, it states that those entities involved should
4