* CASE 1
With regards to the comment of the junior consultant, I could say that although it is better for a consultant t to maintain the confidentiality as a result of professional relationship, it should be noted also that consultants do have ethical requirements being followed in the conduct if work. Moreover, a consultant cannot be deterred from performing its professional duty to disclose this information to the external auditors who have the greater responsibility to take charge of this matter. In short, those questionable management practices are not to be held confidential but are to be given notice on the responsible authority. * CASE 2
The president having a high authority within the organization and whom the problem is directly attributed into, would be quite improper for a consultant to bypass his authority of knowing such information. Although it might create a threat on my part, I should directly notify him of such matter knowing that I am after the overall welfare of the organization rather than its individuals. * CASE 3
As a consultant, I have no direct authority to divulge the anomalies or frauds within the organization. Although this case presents a dilemma involving intimidation threat coming from higher authority, there is a need for me to discuss the real matter to the external auditors who have greater authority regarding this matter. * CASE 4
On this particular case, we should take note that the main purpose of hiring the service of the consultant is to perform a feasibility study concerning a new wing for the hospital. It doesn’t matter whether this has been construed only as an attempt to sell the bonds because this is not the issue. In other words, I would directly inform the management about the matter (that there is a doubt with regards to the economic efficiency of pursuing the action) rather than to hide the matter and pursue self interest because in the end, I would still be held responsible on the impact of whatever assertion I would impart. So, it’s up to the management to pursue the project because this is a management function. * CASE 5
Following the ethical principle of objectivity, I should not leave myself dictated or influenced by other parties. It is an independent obligation and I would certainly give recommendations and findings to what it purport to be. * CASE 6
This case exemplifies another situation involving intimidation threat on the part of an internal consultant. As an internal consultant on this case, I should notify the external consultant or even the external auditor regarding the matter because they have a more inclined authority than me in terms of handling this situation.
* CASE 7
The question that goes on this case whether it is ethical or not to accept the engagement is clearly subjective. As a consultant who do not smoke, it would deemed proper for me to accept the engagement or even if I accept the engagement, it cannot be even called unethical knowing that it only involves an issue of delicadeza, rather than a pure bias on the ethics of the profession. Since I have several consultants who work for me as stated in the case, I would leave them the option of undertaking the said contract depending upon their option.
* CASE 8
Knowing that the public visibility has a material bearing on the perception among the people of the result of the evaluation, it would be deemed proper to for me to improve first my public relations effort. But I should not be held responsible or take charge of fixing first my public relations side. To think, the manager hired my services on this case so that means he firmly believe on my expertise. In short, I would inform that I could accept the arrangement but not took charge of the responsibility of improving my public relations by spending 10% of the total fee. And it would be up to them to continue the engagement having known the consequences of hiring consultants with...