Tap Sap Company
Essay Test
Business Ethic Accountants
Question 1:
According to Brooks, the ethical culture of a business “should be based on honesty, fairness, compassion, integrity, predictability, and responsibility and focused on the development of trust and the respect for stakeholder interests” (672). In this case, Mr. Woodrow, as CEO and Chairman of the Board of Tap Sap Company, did not follow this ethical issue:
Firstly, when the Environmental Protection Agency filed a claim against Tap Sap saying that the way they were extracting the sap from the trees to make oil was killing off the endangered Bracken Tall Tree Meshweaver spider, instead of thinking about interest for stakeholder, he firstly thought for himself that his bonus would be dropped …show more content…
Alex’s decision can change the whole situation and affects strongly to all of the stakeholders especially CMI’s employees and local people. In a deontological approach, Alex must follow the rightness and fairness to make the best ethical decision (Brooks, 174). It means that Alex and CMI Company need to follow the government’s rule that they have to stop all the transactions with the unsavory organizations even though the whole company would be in risk of being killed or economic damages. This Deontological theory brings the conflict between law and morality while only one can be followed (Brooks, 145). Government’s law is what people have to follow but they cannot ignore the facts and consequences. The consequentialist context, however, considers an act is ethical if “its favorable consequences outweigh its negative consequences” (Brooks, 173). In this case, Alex should put safety and lives of employees on top. It means, CMI Company should continue to pay for the unsavory organizations while hiding those payments from the government. The consequence of this decision is safety for every one and the business can run normally. The other consequence could be CMI’s employees would lose their jobs and CMI’s CEO might be arrested as supporting for terrorist criminal. But because the benefit is over the negative consequence so it is considered
Business Ethic Accountants
Question 1:
According to Brooks, the ethical culture of a business “should be based on honesty, fairness, compassion, integrity, predictability, and responsibility and focused on the development of trust and the respect for stakeholder interests” (672). In this case, Mr. Woodrow, as CEO and Chairman of the Board of Tap Sap Company, did not follow this ethical issue:
Firstly, when the Environmental Protection Agency filed a claim against Tap Sap saying that the way they were extracting the sap from the trees to make oil was killing off the endangered Bracken Tall Tree Meshweaver spider, instead of thinking about interest for stakeholder, he firstly thought for himself that his bonus would be dropped …show more content…
Alex’s decision can change the whole situation and affects strongly to all of the stakeholders especially CMI’s employees and local people. In a deontological approach, Alex must follow the rightness and fairness to make the best ethical decision (Brooks, 174). It means that Alex and CMI Company need to follow the government’s rule that they have to stop all the transactions with the unsavory organizations even though the whole company would be in risk of being killed or economic damages. This Deontological theory brings the conflict between law and morality while only one can be followed (Brooks, 145). Government’s law is what people have to follow but they cannot ignore the facts and consequences. The consequentialist context, however, considers an act is ethical if “its favorable consequences outweigh its negative consequences” (Brooks, 173). In this case, Alex should put safety and lives of employees on top. It means, CMI Company should continue to pay for the unsavory organizations while hiding those payments from the government. The consequence of this decision is safety for every one and the business can run normally. The other consequence could be CMI’s employees would lose their jobs and CMI’s CEO might be arrested as supporting for terrorist criminal. But because the benefit is over the negative consequence so it is considered