Kardell Paper

Topics: Ethics, Decision making, Decision theory Pages: 13 (3631 words) Published: December 4, 2012
[pic]

BUSS ETHICS & CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

CRG 520

CASE STUDY

( KARDELL PAPER CO. )

( GROUP 2 )

PREPARED BY :

FAIZUL HISHAM BIN MOHD ALIAS : 2011672616

AHMAD FAISAL BIN KAMARUZAMAN: 2011837032

NURUL NADIA BINTI MOHD NOOR AZMI: 2011870322

RAJA FARADYNA RAJA ISKANDAR :2011284874

NORASHIKIN BINTI MD AMIN :2011405672

PREPARED FOR:

MOHD DANIAL AFIQ BIN KHAMAR TAZILAH

DATE OF SUBMISSION:

11-NOV-2012

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, we would like to thank to our lecture of this subject CRG520, Sir Mohd Danial Afiq Bin Khamar Tazilah for the valuable guidance and advice. He inspired us greatly to complete this assignment. Him willingness to motivate us contributed tremendously to our assignment. We also would like to thank him for showing us some example that related to the topic of our assignment.

Besides, we would like to thank the authority of University Technology Mara (UITM) for providing us with a good environment and facilities to get idea for completed this assignment. Also, we would like to take this opportunity to thank to the Faculty of accountancy of University Technology Mara (UITM) for offering this subject, It gave us an opportunity to participate and learn about the Buss Ethics & Corporate Governance

Finally, an honourable mention goes to our families and friends for their understandings and supports on us in completing this assignment. Without helps of the particular that mentioned above, we would face many difficulties while doing this

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ……………………………………………… P4

Ethical Decision Making …..…………………………… P5

Fundamental Interests of Stakeholders …………….. P6

Questions and Answers ……………………………. P7 - P12

Conclusion……………………………………………… P13

References………………………………………………... P14

INTRODUCTION

What do we mean by ethical decision making? Are there decisions that are not ethical in that there is not ethical component to a choice? In their review of ethical decision making, Tenbruensel and Smith-Crowe (2008) present a distinction between moral decision making and amoral decision making. Within each class of decisions, one can make ethical decision or unethical decisions. They further argue that social scientist should not be in the business of telling people what they should do, that is define what is ethical and what is not, but they do acknowledge the necessity to define the criteria by which decisions are placed into their typology for analytical purposed. It is very difficult to define ethical behavior. Many definitions exist, but most depend on using some standard of ethical behavior from which to judge the individual’s behavior. Any standard used is subjective and cultural in nature and subject to intensive debate. There is an inherent problem in attempting to define ethical decision-making or moral behavior.  What we are doing in trying to define these concepts is starting with the answer rather than the question.  While the concept of ethics provides a nice category of inquiry, it isolates the concepts associated with what we call ethics from other models of decision-making and motivation.  Why do we need special models of ethical decision-making and moral motivation when we have spent been years developing models of motivation and decision-making.  If our "mainstream" behavioral models are not robust enough to include ethical issues within them, then they need to be expanded.  Rather than start with the answer, let's start with defining the behavioral phenomena that the concepts of ethics and morals are attempting to explain. 

Fundamental Interests of Stakeholders

Based on Kardell...

References: ……………………………………………... P14
INTRODUCTION
What do we mean by ethical decision making? Are there decisions that are not ethical in that there is not ethical component to a choice? In their review of ethical decision making, Tenbruensel and Smith-Crowe (2008) present a distinction between moral decision making and amoral decision making. Within each class of decisions, one can make ethical decision or unethical decisions. They further argue that social scientist should not be in the business of telling people what they should do, that is define what is ethical and what is not, but they do acknowledge the necessity to define the criteria by which decisions are placed into their typology for analytical purposed. It is very difficult to define ethical behavior. Many definitions exist, but most depend on using some standard of ethical behavior from which to judge the individual’s behavior. Any standard used is subjective and cultural in nature and subject to intensive debate.
There is an inherent problem in attempting to define ethical decision-making or moral behavior.  What we are doing in trying to define these concepts is starting with the answer rather than the question.  While the concept of ethics provides a nice category of inquiry, it isolates the concepts associated with what we call ethics from other models of decision-making and motivation.  Why do we need special models of ethical decision-making and moral motivation when we have spent been years developing models of motivation and decision-making.  If our "mainstream" behavioral models are not robust enough to include ethical issues within them, then they need to be expanded.  Rather than start with the answer, let 's start with defining the behavioral phenomena that the concepts of ethics and morals are attempting to explain. 
Fundamental Interests of Stakeholders
Based on Kardell paper company case that has fundamental Interest of Stakeholder Which is Well-offness, Fairness, Right and Virtuosity because we discovered Kardell boards of directors represented a crossection of interest group. Everyone on the board felt a responsibility toward the shareholders, but have some member of the board also paid special attention to community and labor concerns. Example the city councilor and two business people they composed kardell board of director wanted assurances that the community was not in any danger, so indirectly kardell was adopted Right, where proposed decision should not offend the stakeholder’s rights at the same times. Well-offness will come together because community will fell that kardell concern more to community so the result should be more benefit that cost. Extension from Kardell we discovered again Fundamental Interest of Stakeholders material was identify is a Fairness, from report mention the labor representative expressed concern about any compound that might affect the health of kardell employees living in the area, by that CEO agreed shutdown the plant would be know mills will reduce profit and most of employees would lost their job. We can noticed kardell was distribute benefit and burden equally that mean employees and mills sharing a same burden. There is no proper evidence indicating that kardell the only company responsible for the sonox found in the rival because kardell not only company dumping into the rival. Sonax levals will continue to increase and more people will become ill, for the legally kardell is within its rights but it concerns and have being responsible for the community and shut down plant is a best idea. If kardell does nothing, in future it could lose reputation, increase illnesses and lose money. Here we can see kardell have Virtuosity intend proposed decision demonstrate virtues reasonably expected which is willing to stop operating to reduce or eliminate illnesses
Ethical Decision Making Process
As we know that kardell has provided employment and economic development for the Riverside community over the past century. There is no clear indication that kardell mill is the only source of sonax emission into the Cherokee river. There has an employee, name Jack found situation where this company is using a chemical called sonox for their bleached kraft paper and he monitoring the activities in the company by having water tested for environmental issue then he offered as a possible solution the option of kardell adopting a new processing technology which used recycling technique for waste water. This technology not only protected the environment but reclaimed waste material, which was then sold the chemical producers. Ethical Decision Making is a important decision and must take time to implement the best decision that involved ethical values and principles ( Trustworthiness, Respect, Responsibility, Fairness, Caring and Citizenship ). The value will came when override unethical behavior like Money, Power, Popularity and Prizes, hence, eliminate unethical behavior that will produce the most good for the most people example after the argue with who are involve in this issue kardell mill agreed keep up to date sonax information because they fell have right to company and citizen to properly monitor the emission level, as citizen of riverside are very concerned with the pollution of sonax and its possible effects on the city. Kardell mill must obey by the laws on the things can reduce the existing regulation of emission levels. It is also in the best entrust to reduce the sonax before government put regulations. By staying on top of regulations and follow all possible precautions the kardell mill should not face any legal concern in the future regarding the sonox emissions.
1. Who are the stakeholders involved, and what are their interests?
The “Stakeholders” involved within the case of Kardell Paper are ALL parties mentioned; and quite numerous, save for the attorneys. Attorneys are compensated to deliberate issues in lieu of solving problems which is why we must remove them collectively as “stakeholders” and defer to them as counsel upon matters which might result in liabilities for the company. Attorneys hereinafter shall be referred to as “counsel”.
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Essay about Kardell
  • Summary of Documentations on Paper Recycling
  • General Paper
  • Enzymes and Paper
  • School Papers
  • Banana Paper
  • Paper Flower
  • Ancient Paper

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free