Courseware from the course on Business Ethics that I taught at St. Joseph\'s College of Business Administration in 2009

1. Business
Ethics
Tathagat
Varma
Session
4/12:
7-­‐Aug-­‐09

2. Painful
Personal
Encounters
• Ken
Shelton,
editor
and
publisher
of
Execu've
Excellence
magazine,
the
world’s
leading
execuIve
advisory
newsleLer,
and
Personal
Excellence
magazine
– One
reason
unethical
behavior
is
so
common
is
because
it
can
be
very
rewarding
in
the
short-­‐term.
The
near-­‐term
costs
of
honest
behavior
are
well
documented,
making
the
ethical
choice
very
tough,
especially
when
the
long-­‐term
payoff
or
advantage
seems
remote
at
best.
– Part
of
the
maturaIon
process
is
to
pass
through
close
encounters
with
unethical
people,
judging
for
ourselves
who
is
who
and
what
is
what,
and
then
associaIng
with
the
people
and
organizaIons
we’re
most
comfortable
with.
– But
aSer
an
encounter
or
two,
we
ought
to
spot
a
trend,
have
the
eyes
to
see
certain
signs,
certain
things
coming,
before
we
experience
them

3. Painful…
• When
one
area
or
aspect
of
our
lives
or
organizaIons
is
more
or
less
legiImate,
all
other
areas
then
borrow
credibility
from
the
Bank
of
Strength
(our
strong
points).
So,
we
may
be
highly
ethical
in
one
area,
highly
unethical
in
another.
And
when
our
unethical
acts
are
exposed,
our
loved
ones
are
typically
“stunned”
or
“shocked”,
and
quick
to
come
to
our
defense
because
they
know
us
to
be
legiImate
and
lovable
in
other
roles.
And
yes,
we
may
be
based
on
a
solid
foundaIon
in
a
profession
only
because
it
imposed
a
certain
discipline
on
us,
meaning
we
must
abide
by
certain
rules
and
regulaIons,
checks
and
balances
within
the
system.
But
once
outside
that
system
or
specialty,
we
may
register
counterfeit
to
a
high
degree.

4. Painful…
• Unethical
behavior
is
most
oSen
about
subtleIes,
gray
areas,
whisper,
shadows,
nuances,
and
noise.
And
because
of
duality
in
people,
differences
can
be
hard
to
detect.
We
are
all
composites,
not
100%
counterfeit
or
authenIc.
We
are
both
originals
and
copies
–
nurtured
from
seed
and
made
from
scratch
in
some
areas,
and
influenced
by
imitaIon,
comparison,
or
compeIIon
in
others.

5. The
Cost
of
Being
Ethical
• Norman
AugusIne,
President
&
CEO
of
Lockheed
MarIn
– Every
great
leader
puts
ethics
first.
In
business,
it
means
pufng
ethics
before
profits,
before
sales,
even
before
staying
in
business
– I
personally
believe
hardly
anyone
comes
to
work
in
the
morning
–
or
shows
up
at
school
or
goes
out
on
the
ball
field
–
with
the
idea
of
doing
something
unethical.
I
believe
most
people
want
to
be
honest
and
ethical.
But
if
people
set
out
to
do
the
‘right
thing’,
why
do
so
many
end
up
doing
something
unethical?
The
answer
is
that
being
ethical
oSen
–
perhaps
even
usually
–
entails
a
short-­‐term
cost
– Well,
no
one
ever
said
being
ethical
is
easy!
Being
ethical
means
that
we
oSen
must
subsItute
short-­‐term
gains
for
a
greater,
long-­‐term
reward

6. The
Cost…
– The
truly
difficult
ethical
choices
in
life
involve
day-­‐to-­‐day
decisions,
where
the
immediate
cost
is
very
evident
and
the
long-­‐term
“payoff”
or
advantage
seems
remote.
– I
believe
what
needs
to
be
said
to
our
friends,
our
employees,
and
our
colleagues
is
that
by
paying
the
price
of
being
ethical
today,
we
are
actually
invesIng
for
the
longer
good.
We
all
know
that
nothing
worth
achieving
is
easily
aLained.
We
must
not
reject
ethical
behavior
because
it
is
hard
in
the
short
run,
but
embrace
it
for
the
fact
that
it
yields
dividends
over
the
long
run.
– The
great
French
Marshal
Lyautey
once
asked
his
gardener
to
plan
a
certain
type
of
tree.
The
gardener
protested
that
the
tree
was
slow-­‐growing
and
would
not
reach
maturity
for
a
hundred
years.
The
Marshal
replied,
“
In
that
case,
there
is
no
Ime
to
lose;
plant
it
this
aSernoon!”

7. Ethics
in
Sports
-­‐
Baseball
• In
1959,
Ted
Williams
was
40
years
old
and
closing
out
his
career
with
the
Boston
Red
Sox.
He
was
suffering
from
pinched
nerve
in
his
neck
that
reason.
For
the
first
Ime
in
his
career,
he
baLed
under
.300,
hifng
just
.254
with
10
home
runs.
He
was
the
highest
salaried
player
in
sposts,
making
$150,000
a
year.
The
following
winter,
the
Red
Sox
sent
him
the
same
contract
he
had
during
his
disappoinIng
season.
• When
we
got
the
proposal,
Williams
sent
it
back
with
a
note
saying
that
he
would
not
sign
it
unIl
they
gave
him
the
full
pay
cut
allowed.
“I
was
always
treated
fairly
by
the
Red
Sox
when
it
came
to
contracts”,
Williams
said.
“Now
they
were
offering
me
a
contract
I
didn’t
deserve.
And
I
only
wanted
what
I
deserved”.
The
upshot
was
that
Williams
cut
his
own
salary
by
25%.

8. Ethics
in
Sports
-­‐
Golf
• Golfers
someImes
joke
about
the
player
who
cheated
to
regularly
that
when
he
once
had
a
“hole
in
one”,
he
wrote
down
“zero”
in
his
scorecard.
• A
more
admirable
approach
to
ethical
behavior
on
the
links
was
exhibited
once
during
the
Kemper
Open.
The
great
professional
golfer
Tom
Kite
wanted
his
playing
partner,
Grant
Waite,
that
Waite
was
about
to
commit
a
rules
infracIon
that
would
cost
him
two
strokes.
Waite
corrected
his
behavior,
avoided
the
two-­‐stroke
penalty,
and
went
on
to
win
the
tournament,
eking
out
a
one-­‐stroke
victory
–
over
Tom
Kite!
Not
only
did
Kite
lost
the
victory
trophy,
he
also
lost
$94,000
in
prize
money
as
a
result
of
coming
in
second.
But
he
gained
a
great
deal
of
respect
that
is
far
more
lasIng.

9. Ethics
in
Business
-­‐
Sears
• A
century
ago,
Richard
Sears
–
founder
of
Sears
Roebuck
and
Company
–
started
the
modern
mail
order
industry,
supplying
a
burgeoning
naIon
with
innovaIve
products
and
building
a
business
that
gave
employment
to
hundreds
of
thousands
of
people.
• In
his
zeal
to
sell
merchandize,
Sears
occasionally
would
get
carried
away
with
catalogue
descripIons,
praising
products
far
beyond
the
literal
truth.
This
in
turn
led
to
returned
merchandise
and
reduced
profits.
• But
Sears
learned
his
lesson.
In
later
years,
he
was
fond
of
saying,
“Honesty
is
the
best
policy.
I
know
because
I’ve
tried
it
both
ways.”

10. Deterring
Dubious
Business
Behavior
• Alfred
Marcus,
Carlson
School
of
Management,
University
of
Minnesota
– Enlightened
self-­‐interest
may
not
be
sufficient
guarantee
that
ethical
behavior
will
take
place;
a
stronger
ethical
stance,
once
which
is
not
Ied
to
pure
self-­‐interest,
may
be
needed
– The
only
dependable
deterrent
to
dubious
behavior
is
moral
duty,
an
awareness
of
the
consequences
in
one’s
acIons
and
an
aLenIon
to
right
conduct.
The
meaning
here
is
that
managers
should
treat
people
in
the
organizaIon
and
those
outside
of
it
with
respect,
as
ends
and
not
as
means,
as
Kant
as
stated
it,
and
as
automonous
creatures
not
subject
to
the
managerial
coercion.
These
standards
should
apply
regardless
of
the
short-­‐
or
long-­‐term
shareholder
impact.
– Stockholders
should
not
necessarily
be
the
sole
determinant
of
“goodness”
of
a
parIcular
policy.
The
the
raIonal
pursuit
of
self-­‐
interest
always
comes
before
moral
duty,
then
humanity
is
the
great
loser.

11. A
Price
for
Principle
• David
Neldert,
Director
of
Auxiliary
Services
at
Anderson
University,
Anderson,
Indiana
– The
price
of
principle
may
never
cost
us
personal
loss.
But
principle
may,
at
Imes,
demand
every
cent
we
have
invested.
The
lives
of
Nelson
Mandela,
of
Abraham
Lincoln
and
of
the
great
social
reformer
Mahatma
Gandhi
let
us
know
that
imprisonment
–
and
even
death
–
may
be
the
price
of
principle.
Charles
Swindoll
writes
about
costs
in
his
best-­‐selling
book,
Strengthening
Your
Grip.
Swindoll
reminds
us
that
the
fight
for
principle
–
for
truth,
integrity
and
jusIce
–
can’t
be
fought
by
“weary,
ill-­‐trained,
noncommiLed,
half-­‐hearted
troops”.
The
war
of
principle
will
be
won
in
the
long
run
by
those
who
are
willing
to
pay
the
price
for
principle,
even
if
the
cost
if
life
itself.

12. Reinforcing
Ethics
in
Recession
• David
Perry,
Consultant
with
the
Ethics
Journal
– Recessionary
pressures
manifect
themselves
in
many
areas:
cornet-­‐cufng
in
producIon;
“creaIve”
accounIng’
no-­‐holds-­‐barred
markeIng
and
sales
pracIces’
and
high-­‐pressure
purchasing
techniques,
and
in
the
conduct
of
layoffs
and
RIFs.
RIFs
generate
employee
grievances
and
resentment.
Who
to
lay
off
is
probably
the
most
agonizing
decision
a
manager
can
face
but
a
RIF
is
a
strong
test
of
whether
ethics
has
truly
become
imbedded
in
the
corporate
culture.
– If
employees
see
that
the
RIF
leaves
unscathed
an
“old
boy
network”
in
management,
if
they
see
their
reIrement
benefit
cut,
or
f
they
see
that
ethics
“whistleblowers”
are
among
the
first
to
be
let
go,
employees
will
be
unlikely
to
take
seriously
any
future
company
statements
on
business
ethics.

13. A
QuesIon
of
Ethics
• Barbara
Strandell,
Consultant
– There
is
an
implicit
social
contract
that
management
of
our
large
publicly
held
corporaIons
have
with
shareholders,
customers,
and
employees.
Many
corporate
mission
statement
make
those
social
contracts
explicit….The
social
contract
with
employees
is
being
broken.
This,
this
“great
asset”
is
currently
experiencing
record
levels
of
work-­‐related
stress.
– To
understand
why
this
contract
has
gone
awry,
merely
look
under
the
saIn
sheets
of
the
corporate
culture:
management
negligence
creates
a
conInuous
deterioraIon
of
morale,
pride
and
loyalty.
Layoffs,
acquisiIons
and
divesItures
obviously
have
a
serious
impact
on
the
“survivors”.
But
the
real
disease
is
the
on-­‐going
management
pracIces
that
alienate
and
suffocate
people
on
a
daily
basis.

14. A
QuesIon…
• Many
employees
are
unhappy
with
their
work,
but
unable
to
bail
out;
so
they
hang
in
there,
with
resentment
toward
the
company,
working
at
about
half
of
their
potenIal
pace.
They
oSen
“act
out”
by
abusing
the
system
the
way
they
feel
when
they
have
been
abused;
ulImately,
they
burn
out,
making
worklife
even
more
miserable
for
those
around
them.
The
net
result
is
a
less
producIve
workforce.

15. Ethical
Leadership
• Willard
Butcher,
reIred
Chairman
of
Chase
ManhaLan
CorporaIon
– Forty
years
ago,
I
received
some
simple
advise
that
has
stayed
with
me
from
a
family
friend
named
Marion
Folsom,
the
architect
of
our
naIon’s
social
security
system
and
then
a
top
execuIve
of
the
Eastman
Kodak
Company.
– “Bill”,
Mr.
Folsom
said,
“you
are
going
to
find
that
95%
of
all
decisions
you’ll
ever
make
in
your
career
could
be
made
as
well
by
any
reasonably
intelligent
high
school
sophomore.
But
they’ll
pay
you
for
the
other
5%.”
– And
it’s
those
5%
that
will
be
the
most
difficult
–
the
subjecIve
51-­‐49
decisions
that
will
call
into
play
your
own
long-­‐term
vision,
your
corporate
ideals,
the
discipline
and
constancy
of
your
character.
If
in
making
these
decisions,
you
rely
on
clear
ethical
principles,
a
firm
commitment
toward
ethical
behavior,
and
an
inflexible
standard
of
what’s
right
and
wrong,
then
your
track
record
will
be
very
good.

16. Why
‘Good’
Managers
make
Bad
Ethical
Choices?
• Saul
Gellerman
• Four
commonly
held
raIonalizaIons
that
can
lead
to
misconduct:
– A
belief
that
the
acIvity
is
within
reasonable
ethical
and
legal
limits
–
that
is,
that
is
not
“really”
illegal
or
immoral
– A
belief
that
the
acIvity
is
in
the
individual’s
or
the
corporaIon’s
best
interests
–
that
the
individual
would
somehow
be
expected
to
undertake
the
acIvity
– A
belief
that
the
acIvity
is
“safe”
because
it
will
never
be
found
out
or
publicized;
the
classic
crime-­‐and-­‐
punishment
issue
of
discovery
– A
belief
that
because
the
acIvity
helps
the
company
the
company
will
condone
it
and
even
protect
the
person
who
engages
in
it

17. Why
‘Good’…
• Top
execuIves
seldom
ask
their
subordinates
to
do
things
that
both
of
them
know
are
against
the
law
or
imprudent.
But
company
leaders
someImes
leave
things
unsaid
or
give
the
impression
that
there
are
things
don’t
want
to
know
about.
In
other
words,
they
can
seem,
whether
deliberately
or
otherwise,
to
be
distancing
themselves
from
their
subordinates’
tacIcal
decisions
in
order
to
keep
their
own
hands
clean
if
things
go
awry.
OSen
they
lure
ambiIous
lower
level
managers
by
implying
that
rich
rewards
await
those
who
can
produce
certain
results
–
and
that
the
methods
for
achieving
them
will
not
be
examined
too
closely.

18. Why
‘Good’…
• How
can
managers
avoid
crossing
a
line
that
is
seldom
precise?
Unfortunately,
most
know
that
they
have
overstepped
it
only
when
they
have
gone
too
far.
They
have
no
reliable
guidelines
about
what
will
be
overlooked
or
tolerated
or
what
will
be
condemned
or
aLacked.
When
managers
must
operate
in
murky
borderlands,
their
most
reliable
guideline
is
an
old
principle:
when
in
doubt,
don’t.

19. Why
‘Good’…
• …there
is
a
difference
between
taking
a
worthwhile
economic
risk
and
risking
an
illegal
act
to
make
more
money
• Contrary
to
popular
mythology,
managers
are
not
paid
to
take
risks;
they
are
paid
to
know
which
risks
are
worth
taking.
Also,
maximizing
profits
is
a
company’s
second
priority,
not
its
first.
The
first
is
ensuring
its
survival.
• AmbiIous
managers
look
for
ways
to
aLract
favorable
aLenIon,
something
to
disInguish
them
from
other
people.
So
they
try
to
outperform
their
peers.
Some
may
see
that
it
is
not
difficult
to
look
remarkably
good
in
the
short
run
by
avoiding
things
they
pay
off
only
in
the
long
run.

20. Why
‘Good’…
• The
sad
truth
is
that
many
managers
have
been
promoted
on
the
basis
of
“great”
results
obtained
in
just
those
ways,
leaving
unfortunate
successors
to
inherit
the
inevitable
whirlwind.
• The
most
effecIve
deterrent
is
not
to
increase
the
severity
for
those
caught
but
to
heighten
the
perceived
probability
of
being
caught
in
the
first
place

21. Why
‘Good’…
• Top
management
has
a
responsibility
to
exert
a
moral
force
within
the
company.
Senior
execuIves
are
responsible
for
drawing
the
line
between
loyalty
to
the
company
and
acIon
against
the
laws
and
values
of
the
society
in
which
the
company
must
operate.
Further,
because
that
line
can
be
obscured
in
the
heat
of
the
moment,
the
line
has
to
be
drawn
well
short
of
where
reasonable
men
and
women
could
begin
to
suspect
that
their
rights
had
been
violated.
• ExecuIves
have
a
right
to
expect
loyalty
from
employees
against
compeItors
and
detractors,
but
not
loyalty
against
the
law,
or
against
common
morality,
or
against
society
itself.

22. Examining
Ethics
of
a
Business
decision
• Ethics
without
the
Sermon
–
Laura
Nash
• 12
quesIons
• Have
you
defined
the
problem
accurately
?
– A
truly
moral
decision
is
an
informed
decision.
A
decision
that
is
based
on
blind
or
convenient
ignorance
is
hardly
defensible.
– Importance
of
‘factual
neutrality’
– Extensive
fact
gathering
may
also
help
defuse
the
emoIonalism
of
an
issue

23. Q2
• How
would
you
define
the
problem
if
you
stood
on
the
other
side
of
the
fence
?
– The
purpose
of
arIculaIng
the
other
side,
who
needs
are
understandably
less
proximate
than
operaIonal
consideraIons,
is
to
allow
some
mechanism
whereby
calculaIons
of
self-­‐interest
(or
even
of
a
project’s
ulImate
general
beneficence)
can
be
interrupted
by
a
compelling
empathy
for
those
who
might
suffer
immediate
injury
or
mere
annoyance
as
a
result
of
corporaIon’s
decision.
– Such
empathy
is
a
necessary
prerequisite
for
shouldering
voluntarily
some
responsibility
for
the
social
consequences
of
corporate
operaIons,
and
it
may
be
the
only
soluIon
to
today’s
overly
liIgious
and
anarchic
world.
– There
is
a
power
in
self-­‐examinaIon:
with
an
exploraIon
of
the
likely
consequences
of
a
proposal,
taken
from
the
viewpoint
of
those
who
do
not
immediately
benefit,
comes
a
discomfort
or
an
embarrassment
that
rises
in
proporIon
to
the
degree
of
the
likely
injury
and
its
arIculaIon.

24. Q3
• How
did
this
situaIon
occur
in
the
first
place?
– As
important
as
deciding
the
ethics
of
the
situaIon
was
the
inquiry
into
its
history.
Indeed,
the
history
gave
a
clue
to
solving
the
dilemma
– Very
few
execuIves
are
outright
scoundrels.
Rather,
violaIons
of
corporate
and
social
values
usually
occur
inadvertently
because
no
one
recognizes
that
a
problem
exists
unIl
it
becomes
a
crisis.
This
tendency
toward
iniIal
trivializaIon
seems
to
be
the
biggest
ethical
problem
in
business
today.

25. Q4
• To
whom
and
what
do
you
give
your
loyalIes
as
a
person
and
as
a
member
of
the
corporaIon?
– Every
execuIve
faces
conflicts
of
loyalty.
The
most
familiar
occasions
pit
private
conscience
and
sense
of
duty
against
corporate
policy,
but
equally
frequent
are
the
situaIons
(tacit
or
explicit)
in
an
operaIon
or
a
decision
that
runs
counter
to
company
policy.
To
whom
or
what
is
the
greater
loyalty
to
ons’e
corporaIon?
Superior?
Family?
Society?
Self?
Race?
Sex?
– The
good
news
about
conflicts
of
loyalty
is
that
their
idenIficaIon
is
a
workable
way
of
smoking
out
the
ethics
of
a
situaIon
and
of
the
absolute
values
inherent
in
it.
– The
bad
news
about
is
that
there
are
few
automaIc
answers
for
placing
prioriIes
on
them

26. Q4…
– The
US
securiIes
industry,
for
example,
is
one
of
the
most
rigorous
industries
in
America
in
its
requirements
of
honesty
and
disclosure.
Yet
in
the
end,
all
its
systemaIc
precauIons
prove
inadequate
unless
the
people
involved
also
have
a
sense
of
strong
sense
of
integrity
that
puts
loyalty
to
these
principles
above
personal
gain.
– How
does
one
probe
into
one’s
own
loyalIes
and
their
implicaIons?
A
useful
method
is
simply
to
play
various
roles
out
loud,
to
call
on
one’s
loyalty
to
family
and
community
by
asking,
“What
will
I
say
when
my
child
asks
me
why
I
did
that?”.
If
the
answer
is
“that’s
the
way
the
world
works”,
then
your
loyalIes
are
clear
and
moral
passivity
inevitable.
But
if
the
quesIon
presents
real
problems,
you
have
begun
a
demodulaIon
of
signals
from
your
conscience
that
can
only
enhance
corporate
responsibility.

27. Q5,
Q6
• What
is
your
intenIon
in
making
this
decision?
• How
does
this
intenIon
compare
with
the
likely
results?
– Sociologist
Max
Weber
called
[this
an]
“ethics
of
aftude”
and
contrasted
it
with
an
“ethics
of
absolute
ends”.
An
Ethics
of
aftude
sets
a
standard
to
ensure
a
certain
acIon.
– The
goodness
of
intent
pales
somewhat
before
results
that
perpetrate
great
injury
or
simply
do
liLle
good.
Common
sense
demands
that
the
“responsible”
corporaIon
try
to
align
the
two
more
closely,
to
idenIfy
the
probable
consequences
and
also
the
limitaIons
of
knowledge
that
might
lead
to
more
harm
than
good.
Two
things
to
remember
in
comparing
intenIon
and
results
are
that
knowledge
of
the
future
is
always
inadequate
and
that
overconfidence
oSen
preceded
a
disastrous
mistake.

28. Q7
• Whom
could
your
decision
or
acIon
injure?
– In
an
integrated
society
where
business
and
government
share
certain
values,
possible
injury
is
an
even
more
important
consideraIon
than
potenIal
benefit.

29. Q8
• Can
you
engage
the
affected
parIes
in
a
discussion
of
the
problem
before
you
make
your
decision?
– If
the
calculus
of
injury
is
one
way
of
responding
to
limitaIons
of
knowledge
about
the
probable
results
of
a
parIcular
decision,
the
parIcipaIon
of
affected
parIes
is
one
of
the
best
ways
of
informing
that
consideraIon.
– The
issue
of
parIcipaIon
affects
everyone.
And
yet
it
is
a
principle
oSen
forgoLen
because
of
the
pressure
of
Ime
or
the
inconvenience
of
calling
people
together
and
facing
predictably
hosIle
quesIons.

30. Q9
• Are
you
confident
that
your
posiIon
will
be
as
valid
over
a
long
period
of
Ime
as
it
seems
now?
– Doing
what
you
can
get
away
with
today
may
not
be
a
secure
moral
standard,
but
short-­‐term
discomfort
for
a
long-­‐term
sainthood
may
require
irraIonal
courage
or
a
raIonal
reasoning
system
or,
more
likely,
both

31. Q10
• Could
you
disclose
without
qualm
your
decision
or
acIon
to
your
boss,
your
CEO,
the
board
of
directors,
your
family,
or
society
as
a
whole?
– A
corporaIon
may
maintain
the
there’s
really
no
problem,
but
a
survey
of
how
many
“trivial”
acIons
it
is
reluctant
to
disclose
might
be
interesIng.
Disclosure
is
a
way
of
sounding
those
submarine
depths
of
conscience
and
of
searching
out
loyalIes.
It
is
also
a
way
of
keeping
corporate
character
coherent.
– Disclosure
does
not,
however,
automaIcally
bring
universal
sympathy

32. Q11
• What
is
the
symbolic
potenIal
of
your
acIon
if
understood?
If
misunderstood?
– The
Greek
root
of
our
word
“symbol”
means
both
signal
and
contract.
A
business
decision
–
whether
it
is
the
use
of
an
expense
account
or
a
corporate
decision
–
has
a
symbolic
value
in
signaling
what
is
acceptable
behavior
within
the
corporate
culture
and
in
making
a
tacit
contract
with
employees
and
the
community
about
the
rules
of
the
same.
How
the
symbol
is
actually
perceived
(or
misperceived)
is
as
important
as
how
you
intend
it
to
be
perceived.

33. Q12
• Under
what
condiIons
would
you
allow
excepIons
to
your
stand?
– If
we
accept
the
idea
that
every
business
decision
has
an
important
symbolic
value
and
a
contractual
nature,
then
the
need
for
constancy
is
obvious.
At
the
same
Ime,
it
is
also
important
to
ask
under
what
condiIons
the
rules
of
the
same
may
be
changed.
– What
conflicIng
principles,
circumstances,
or
Ime
constraints
would
provide
a
morally
acceptable
basis
for
making
an
excepIon
to
one’s
normal
insItuIonal
ethos?
– QuesIons
of
consistency
–
if
you
would
do
X,
would
you
also
do
Y?
–
are
yet
another
way
of
eliciIng
the
ethics
of
the
company
and
of
oneself,
and
can
be
a
final
test
of
strength,
idealism,
or
pracIcality
of
those
values.

34. References
• hLp://web.tepper.cmu.edu/ethics/aa/
arthurandersen.htm
for
mini-­‐case
studies
• Integrity
at
Work,
Ken
Shelton,
2000
edi'on
• Harvard
Business
Review
on
Corporate
Ethics,
2003
edi'on