Encyclopedia Of Business Ethics And Assessment Answer

Isabel Arnett made the decision to refuse the permit people to conduct extra investigation within the corporation in order to revise the possible negative effects of Kafluk as she did not provide with the side effects of the vaccine. Also, the was aware that if so many people were falling sick and were getting harmed by the vaccine then it may have certain negative effects which would harm his reputation and his business. Therefore, it was considered to be against the business ethics that it only thought about profit of the organization whereas if she would have followed the ethical way then it would have made the decision in the favor of the community at large.

There have been a number of reasons as per which such ethical issues occur in the business but in this case the main reason was the motive of earning profit. Arnett only thought about making large profits so it manufactured a vaccine so that the bird flu which was prevailing in the state could be secured. As, if all the corporations strictly adhere to the aim of maximizing their profit then they would not welfare the community at large and would only focus on their own welfare.

Also employing in unethical acts means that the corporation could not get away with it i.e. no individual would ever gain knowledge of their immoral events (Ali, 2015).

No, an individual who stick on to the standard of privileges in order to believe it ethical for Arnett to not to reveal the probable security apprehensions and decline to execute supplementary investigation on Kafluk. As they suppose that a major issue in shaping whether a trade verdict which was taken was ethical or not would be decided by affirming that how the decision affects the privileges of other individuals. Other individuals include the customers, employees and society as whole. And in this case only private profit making was the basis upon which decision was taken and the welfare of society was averted. So, the decision would be unethical (Kolb, 2008).

Even if Kafluk would have prohibited 50 Asian individuals who were contaminated with bird flu from failing then also, it would not have changed the ethical consideration in this scenario. It was not modified because the Duty Based ethics of the trade states that traditionally when the standard of behavior derives from revealed truths, religious authorities it involves the concept of right and wrong. Therefore, it could be stated that the decision even if individuals were protected by the vaccine but the decision taken would still be considered as unethical and against the business (Weiss, 2008).

No, Tamik or Arnett did not contravene the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in this case as the Act specifically prohibit the bribery of most of the officers of foreign administrations if the aim of making imbursement was to motivate the officer to grant trade opportunity which did not take place in this case. In this case only welfare of community as a whole was suppressed by profit making of the organization (Clarkson, et al., 2014).

References

Ali, A.J. (2015). Handbook of Research on Islamic Business Ethics Research Handbooks in Business and Management series. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Clarkson, K.W., Miller, R.L., & Cross, F.B. (2014). Business Law: Text and Cases. (13^th ed.). USA: Cengage Learning.

Kolb, R.W. (2008). Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society, Volume 1 A Sage reference publication Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society. California: SAGE.

Weiss, J. (2008). Business Ethics: A Stakeholder and Issues Management Approach. (5^th ed.). USA: Cengage Learning.