SNC-Lavalin Whistleblowing Case Study
Whistleblowing
After a complete analysis of the situation, our team believes that the whistle blower at SNC-Lavalin was justified. To come to such a conclusion we can borrow an analysis of the ethics of whistleblowing created by philosopher Richard DeGeorge.
According to DeGeorge, for whistle-blowing to be considered ethical there first must be a serious harm that the whistle-blowing aims to prevent, which is greater than the harm it causes the firm and stakeholders. In this case, the corrupt activities are very serious and would have posed a greater harm going undetected than the negative media attention and charges brought against the firm. DeGeorge’s second condition states that the whistle-blower is required to first attempt to prevent …show more content…
These actions have hurt many of its stakeholders, including the communities in which SNC conducts business, stockholders as the share price has fallen drastically and the faulty infrastructure has even hurt their clients (Nicol, 2015, February 20). All of these instances showcase only the negative parts of SNC-Lavalin’s image; digging deeper into the company’s initiatives, we have discovered that both before and after the scandals, SNC has made numerous efforts to be a socially-responsible …show more content…
In the case of SNC-Lavailin, will a punishment that forces it to discontinue operations do the greatest good? It will set an example to other firms who may consider or currently partake in corruption, but the far reaching effects of closing down a firm which is trying to change its ways do not outweigh the benefits. An example can be set through a lighter sentence to the firm which does not force it to shut down and does not cause further harm to the stakeholders. Such punishments will both lead to the greater good of society, as immoral actions are being punished, and the individual good, as innocent stakeholders are not being held liable for crimes they are not responsible
After a complete analysis of the situation, our team believes that the whistle blower at SNC-Lavalin was justified. To come to such a conclusion we can borrow an analysis of the ethics of whistleblowing created by philosopher Richard DeGeorge.
According to DeGeorge, for whistle-blowing to be considered ethical there first must be a serious harm that the whistle-blowing aims to prevent, which is greater than the harm it causes the firm and stakeholders. In this case, the corrupt activities are very serious and would have posed a greater harm going undetected than the negative media attention and charges brought against the firm. DeGeorge’s second condition states that the whistle-blower is required to first attempt to prevent …show more content…
These actions have hurt many of its stakeholders, including the communities in which SNC conducts business, stockholders as the share price has fallen drastically and the faulty infrastructure has even hurt their clients (Nicol, 2015, February 20). All of these instances showcase only the negative parts of SNC-Lavalin’s image; digging deeper into the company’s initiatives, we have discovered that both before and after the scandals, SNC has made numerous efforts to be a socially-responsible …show more content…
In the case of SNC-Lavailin, will a punishment that forces it to discontinue operations do the greatest good? It will set an example to other firms who may consider or currently partake in corruption, but the far reaching effects of closing down a firm which is trying to change its ways do not outweigh the benefits. An example can be set through a lighter sentence to the firm which does not force it to shut down and does not cause further harm to the stakeholders. Such punishments will both lead to the greater good of society, as immoral actions are being punished, and the individual good, as innocent stakeholders are not being held liable for crimes they are not responsible