("Resolution of Business Ethical Dilemmas," n.d.) At the same time, this strategy is very balanced. The only drawback is that there will be short-term pain (in varying degrees) for different stakeholders. This means that the firm can remain in business when the bankruptcy is occurring and maintain their competitive position inside the marketplace. This will help them to deal with any kind of negative effects and ensure that they are economically viable going forward. ("Resolution of Business Ethical Dilemmas," n.d.)

The way that this will make people feel, is to have mixed emotions about what is happening. This is occurring, with the bankruptcy hurting those who were harmed by repeated exposure to asbestos and the negative effects it will have on stakeholders. In this aspect, these issues will cause regret about the incident and the pain it is inflicting upon others. ("Resolution of Business Ethical Dilemmas," n.d.)

However, if the firm were to file for bankruptcy and reorganize, it will deal with the long-term consequences of the litigation that is taking place. This means that the company can move forward and will not harm employees or local communities (who depend upon it remaining in business). Over the longer term, this will ensure that company can continue to benefit these stakeholders and provide them with resources to help them. ("Resolution of Business Ethical Dilemmas," n.d.)

In this aspect, the Blanchard and Peele model is demonstrating how there will be positive benefits from going into bankruptcy. The only real challenges will be the immediate short-term impacts these decisions will have on stakeholders. However, over the longer periods, is the point these changes will lead to positive benefits. That will help a variety of stakeholders in the process. ("Resolution of Business Ethical Dilemmas," n.d.)

However, Immanuel Kant's beliefs are much different. This is because it is focused on the idea of doing unto others as you would have done to you. When this is applied to Jackson Miller, these...

This is occurring through highlighting the underlying amounts of harm that will face, if it were to deal with the negative consequences of the litigation (by settling). When this happens, managers will be forced to go into bankruptcy, in order to address these challenges or face the possibility of liquidation. This will have negative consequences on a variety of stakeholders. ("Resolution of Business Ethical Dilemmas," n.d.)
As a result, the best approach is to utilize the Blanchard Peele model on ethics for resolving the situation. This will result in the least amounts of damage and it is ensuring that the organization remains economically viable well into the future. When this happens, the company can protect its employees and communities who will feel the negative effects. This is the point they can introduce changes that will help everyone to move forward. ("Resolution of Business Ethical Dilemmas," n.d.)

Clearly, the best approach for Jackson Miller is to going into bankruptcy and to use the courts to eliminate any kind of awards from asbestos claims. This will have a positive impact on stakeholders over the long-term by providing them with a way of eliminating any negative consequences as a result; this means that the best model is the Blanchard Peele theory. This is because it can ensure that the firm is following the different regulations and that they are meeting the various guidelines imposed on them.

At the same time, it will reduce the negative consequences on the organization and their ability to deal with these challenges. When this happens, the company can restructure and make certain that these issues have been rectified completely. Any other approach, is only delaying the inevitable. This will lead to the same consequences and only prolong these problems even further. To avoid these challenges, managers must be focused on meeting these objectives at all costs.