Jeffrey Wigand And Development At The Brown And Williamson Tobacco Company
In this short essay I am going to discuss about Jeffrey Wigand who was a head of Research & Development at the Brown & Williamson tobacco company. After few years of his Research, He suddenly came to know that certain additives such as nicotine was being added in large amounts in the manufacturing process of tobacco products which was very harmful to the users and that can lead to serious health issues. Jeffrey Wigand was completely justified in his actions against Brown & Williamson Company as he is fulfilling all the five criteria of De George. De George’s five criteria under whistle blowing can be considered to be morally permissible. The action is morally justified, when it meets the requiring five criteria. The first three conditions
…show more content…
According to this case, Wigand has no confidentiality agreement with Brown & Williamson and he can blow the whistle as we know that cigarettes are addictive and dangerous to health. (p.366). Brown and Williamson product and policies were doing serious harm to people and has negative health effects of smoking (p.367). So first case meets the De George’s criteria. Second and third conditions are related to one another and they are known as ‘’ Internal Reporting principles ‘’. When employee has made his concerns to the superiors and he didn’t received any response from their immediate superiors within the company he can report to the board of directors.When three conditions are met then whistleblowing is morally permissible. In this case, I believe that Jeffrey Wigand did the right thing by blowing the Whistle on Brown & Williamson. De George’s believes that 4 and 5th conditions should also be met so that the employee has a moral obligation to blow the whistle. The fourth condition is known as Evidentiary principle which tells that whistleblower must have documented evidence of the serious harm or threat that would convince a reasonable and impartial observer (p.367).In this Wigand’s case he had
According to this case, Wigand has no confidentiality agreement with Brown & Williamson and he can blow the whistle as we know that cigarettes are addictive and dangerous to health. (p.366). Brown and Williamson product and policies were doing serious harm to people and has negative health effects of smoking (p.367). So first case meets the De George’s criteria. Second and third conditions are related to one another and they are known as ‘’ Internal Reporting principles ‘’. When employee has made his concerns to the superiors and he didn’t received any response from their immediate superiors within the company he can report to the board of directors.When three conditions are met then whistleblowing is morally permissible. In this case, I believe that Jeffrey Wigand did the right thing by blowing the Whistle on Brown & Williamson. De George’s believes that 4 and 5th conditions should also be met so that the employee has a moral obligation to blow the whistle. The fourth condition is known as Evidentiary principle which tells that whistleblower must have documented evidence of the serious harm or threat that would convince a reasonable and impartial observer (p.367).In this Wigand’s case he had