Ethics & Libor

Topics: Ethics, Barclays, Bank Pages: 7 (2268 words) Published: May 17, 2013
Marcella’s case
Here the issue is Marcella has been asked by the manager, who is in charge of the contract, to provide a convenience as claiming his tour expense in the projects’ expenses. It is actually a position-related consumption, by abusing his power on the project, he tends to approve the Marcella’s invoice and misappropriate public funds for private consumption. The role Marcella plays here is to do a favor, pay the manager’s tour fee first and claim it into her contract reward. There is no loss occurs for Marcella if she promises, and even the relationship with the manager will become better that definitely facilitates her work in the future. Nonetheless, she can be accused as an accomplice of the manager’s malfeasance. Also concerns arise for the authenticity of the manager’s incentive on the tour. If it is not really aim at understanding Hoople, the behavior conflicts the project and the aid bank’s interests, which could be against law. The main involvers in the circumstance are Marcella, manager, bank, citizens and Hoople, local officials and UK i.e. the business reputation. By identifying all possible dimensions of actions, Marcella can only take accept or reject.

We will implement Marcella on ethical decision making through ethics screening, which depicts three perspectives to determine the moral level: Principles, Conventional and Ethical Tests approaches. The essay will mainly employ perspective principle, the analysis as shown below:

Ethical PrinciplesIf accept

RightsManager: right of administration (no change) •Bank: right of funding (no change) right to know (negative) •Hoople: right to receive payment (no change) •Citizens: beneficial right (negative) •UK & Local Officials: right of reputation (negative)

JusticeUK & Local Officials: UK firms’ reputation will be hurt as people may think all the other UK firms will accept the violation. Likewise for the local officials •Citizens: the manager’s individual interest is injurious to the major interest

Marcella: receiving a better relationship with manager, probably can obtain extra convenience for future work •Manager: enjoying a free trip
Hoople: Easier to finish work as better relationship with administration team Harms:
Bank: fund will be used on the misappropriate expenses
Citizens: Part of the aiding money used for private, less welfare will be produced

Golden RuleRole play:
if Marcella is one of those citizen
if Marcella has employees do the similar things to the manager’s

The principle approach is able to reach the judgment of the course of action whether it is ethical i.e. passing through the ethics screen. Otherwise, it will screen out the unethical action and followed by looking for another one. Depended on the analysis above, rights model filters the ethical decision by defending the majority’s rights, so the ‘accept’ action is unethical here. The Justice model tends to maintain the fairness in the way of equally locating the perceived benefits and harms. There is not that distinct on this issue. Regarding the utility, ‘ethical’ represents the largest welfare is generated for the most people, as the consequence of which, it is unethical. In the case of the golden rule, the result should be based on the answer of Marcella, although it is common sense that they are negative. To sum up, the ‘accept’ option is unethical. Apart from the ethics screen, on the ground of the CFA Institute (2010), Marcella should maintain the loyalty and care to its clients. The international aid bank is the pure investor and Marcella has to act in the best interest to it. That is to...
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Ethics and Libor Essay
  • Ethics Essay
  • Ethics, Greed, & Psychology Within the Libor Scandal Essay
  • ethics paper
  • police ethics Essay
  • Ethics Research Paper
  • Ethics Essay

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free