Examples of Ethical Decisions

¶ … Decision

Ethical Implications

Legal Implications

Fairness Implications

Volkswagen knowingly used the software in its emission systems for its diesel cars sold in the U.S. which suppressed the emission readings to suit the requirements of the regulators in 2014-15. The company used these reduced emission readings to market and sell the car not only in the U.S. bit also in other parts of the world including Europe. The company used these reduced emission readings to aggressively market its cars and enhance business. Martin Winterkorn was the CEO of the company at the time of the incident.

This incident or decision by the top bosses of Volkswagen was highly unethical as it violated the established ethical norms of business. They resorted to misinforming the customers. The company willingly and willfully used the software to misinform customers through its marketing campaign. The customers were falsely drawn into thinking that the vehicles of the company were indeed very low on emission. Consequently not only were they duped but such people also stood to potentially violate the emission norms without having to do anything with it (McDowell, 2000). With respect to the health of the company, this decision was unethical as the health of the company was not so dire that it had to resort to such an unethical step.

The company was legally implicated for falsifying data and suppressing data as well as violating environment regulatory norms under the United States law. The company was also implicated under the German law, the home country of the company, and an investigation has been initiated both in the U.S. and Germany. A number of customers have also filed lawsuits against the company in the U.S. alleging that the company had duped them with false information. Thus, the company is also in trouble legally from the decision. Despite what the health of a company is such decisions are always unethical and illegal in nature and are liable to be prosecuted.

In terms of fairness, the company has not been fair towards any of the stakeholders. the company has been unfair to the customers by providing them false information. The company has also cheated the regulatory norms and been unfair to the regulators. The company's shares have fallen drastically after the revelations of the incident and the shareholders of the company have suffered financially and hence the company has also not been fair towards the shareholders. In terms of the health of the company, the decision proved to be very unfair. The company lost value in terms of shares as well as in terms of image and business. Moreover, the company stands to face huge legal costs in damages to the legal suits (McDowell, 2000).

Martin Shkreli, the CEO of an American drugs company called Retrophin came under severe criticism after the company hiked the price of life-saving HIV-related drugs from $13.50 to $750. This was a hike in the price of drugs that was unprecedented in the history of pharmacy. It was alleged that the company had done so taking advantage of its patented right over the drug and deprived millions of people of taking advantage of the drug. The company said it wanted the money for further research which was not convincing for most people.

This decision by the CEO of Retrophin drug company has been one of the most condemned decisions in terms of ethics in the U.S. in recent times. Ethically this is very wrong as the decision -- aimed at enhancing profits many folds, had essentially deprived the cancer patients of a drug that could have saved their lives. This is a classic example of an unethical decision aimed to make private gains at the expense of the happiness and well-being of others. The health of the company was not in such a position that such an astronomical hike in the prices of the life-saving drugs had to be made. Despite the relatively good health of the company the decision was very unethical (Moon, 2001).

Legally, the decision cannot be challenged as the company had bought rights to the drug that they increased by 5000% a few years back. Hence legally the company and the CEO were will within their rights to have enhanced the price of the drug and neither the U.S. criminal laws nor the PFA regulations and laws can stop the company and the CEO from doing so. This is what the company reportedly had taken advantage of.

This decision by the company CEO is a classic example of the unethical business decision as well as very unfair for the patients and customers who had been using the drugs. The drugs not only provided relief to the patients from the pain of cancer but also helped them stay alive. This right of life and happiness was derived from the patients but increasing the price of the drug by 5000%, therefore, this decision was highly unfair to the customers and the patients who used the drugs. No matter what the health of a company is, such huge hike in prices of life-saving drugs is very unfair and has been rightly criticized by almost everyone.

In 2016, Nokia decided to cut at least 14% of its workforce from all over the world in an attempt to enhance its profits by reducing costs. Just before the decision the company has acquired Alcatel -- a French telecommunications company and spent a huge amount of money in doing so. Yet it decided to reduce costs and enhance profits by risking the livelihood of thousands of its employees who had worked there for years.

This decision of the company is ethically correct as the company had faced near bankruptcy a few years back and had to sell off its mobile handset business to Microsoft. The company's decision was ethical to the extent that it was a matter of survival of the company amidst growing competition in the market and the company has the right to protect its interest as well as the interest of the rest of the 86% of the employees who still continue to work in the company. While this decision by the CEO and the company board may seem unethical to those retrenched, considering the lives and families of the majority of the employees, this decision seems ethical in nature. Here the company chose to provide relief to the majority of the employees while troubling a minority group. Hence, the decision is ethical as the company took it keeping in mind the greater good of the majority (Moon, 2001).