Business Ethics Case Study: Zarley's Case
During a meeting, one of Zarley’s prospective landlords offers him $10,000 and two iPods in which he states that they are for Zarley’s family (Ethical Reasoning, 2013, p. 2). This was done in an effort to manipulate Zarley into entering a long-term lease agreement with him. When Zarley realised his true intentions, he refused the landlord's offer but failed to report the incident to his supervisor. As a result, serious issues were raised as to whether Zarley acted ethically and legally in that instance.
Ethics and law are closely intertwined as both are focused on what is right and wrong. Ethics are principles that guide a person's actions, while the law enforces those principles to prevent immoral behaviour. In regards to the case, Zarley’s …show more content…
As stated in the case “he know it’s wrong to accept so he politely returns the money and iPods to Brady” (p. 2). Zarley strived to make the right decision that will be in line with his virtue and the company's code of conduct. By doing this, he promoted competition and fairness between the landlords. As a result, they were given an equal advantage to prove their worthiness of a contract. Zarley refused to compromise his virtues even if accepting the bribe could result in short-term profit. As stated in the case “he knows it's wrong to accept” the bribe (p. 2). They key word here is “wrong” which suggests that he realises that he has a duty to follow the code of conduct. The moral rule is it is wrong to accept a bribe, especially if he knew Brady’s intentions. Zarley emphasises the role of character virtue and in doing so, his action does not damage the morale of the team and bank.
Furthermore, the case stated that “Zarley badly needs the money”. For example, although it's illegal for Zarley to accept the bribe, it is also unethical not to support his family. Zarley declined Brady’s bribe even though he could have improved his family circumstances by keeping the $10,000. This shows that Zarley decision was not self-centered because he considered the extent to which accepting the bribe will have on others. He encompasses virtue of benevolence and fairness as he ensured that the bank’s codes were being
Ethics and law are closely intertwined as both are focused on what is right and wrong. Ethics are principles that guide a person's actions, while the law enforces those principles to prevent immoral behaviour. In regards to the case, Zarley’s …show more content…
As stated in the case “he know it’s wrong to accept so he politely returns the money and iPods to Brady” (p. 2). Zarley strived to make the right decision that will be in line with his virtue and the company's code of conduct. By doing this, he promoted competition and fairness between the landlords. As a result, they were given an equal advantage to prove their worthiness of a contract. Zarley refused to compromise his virtues even if accepting the bribe could result in short-term profit. As stated in the case “he knows it's wrong to accept” the bribe (p. 2). They key word here is “wrong” which suggests that he realises that he has a duty to follow the code of conduct. The moral rule is it is wrong to accept a bribe, especially if he knew Brady’s intentions. Zarley emphasises the role of character virtue and in doing so, his action does not damage the morale of the team and bank.
Furthermore, the case stated that “Zarley badly needs the money”. For example, although it's illegal for Zarley to accept the bribe, it is also unethical not to support his family. Zarley declined Brady’s bribe even though he could have improved his family circumstances by keeping the $10,000. This shows that Zarley decision was not self-centered because he considered the extent to which accepting the bribe will have on others. He encompasses virtue of benevolence and fairness as he ensured that the bank’s codes were being