The "Safety First" scenario is even less cut-and-dry for me. If a company wants to increase its profit margin and include a high-end line of clothing, then it has the right to do so. I do not believe that a company can prevent or control crime through its pricing strategies. Shoplifting is not necessarily related to the presence of luxury goods. I feel that crime is a reflection of overarching social, economic, and political problems. As long as the company is acting ethically in other respects, then I don't see the problem with offering the high-end jacket. Offering a low-cost alternative to the high-end jacket in my opinion is not the best solution in this case either, because it undervalues the more expensive article of clothing and could prevent people from buying it. Instead, a win-win situation might be to firmly decide that the Daze line would become high-end and that Shout could start marketing that line of clothing differently. My personal values did not change cased on this simulation but I am now more aware of how I feel about a company's right to create different pricing strategies...
These scenarios did somewhat alter my personal values because they brought to my attention the need to
respect other cultures without compromising company codes of ethics. For example, if a company is committed to promoting local talent and
women it should stick to those values even if it is operating within a male-dominated society. Respect for cultural values does not need to infringe on the rights and freedoms that should be guaranteed to all individuals, regardless of gender. However,
employees operating in cultures other than their own should learn about those cultures' value systems and understand that they might have to alter their
communications and business strategies.
