Monday, February 18, 2013

FC Barcelona: The Cesc Fabregas Saga (2011)

Based on paper by: Mike Wysocki
Summary by: Patrick Cameron

                In 2011, the Spanish club FC Barcelona acquired the star midfielder Cesc Fabregas from the English Premier League Arsenal. There is a lot of debate about how the Spanish club acquired the player from the English team. Barcelona justified their acquisition and interest of the player because he was a player in one of the youth squads and he was also a native of Spain. But the way the club signed him was questionable. Many people said that he was being ‘tapped-up’ by the Barcelona program. The club did this by talking to the media by saying they were interested in the Spanish midfielder and they thought he would be a good fit with the team. Also many players from the team said Fabregas would be a great fit with the team and how excited they would be if they played with him. This caused a great amount of controversy, because Fabregas had a contract with Arsenal through June of 2015. So he had to ask to be transferred from Arsenal to Barcelona. The world futbol organization, FIFA, also has laws against ‘tapping-up’ players for the bigger and wealthier teams to prevent them from doing this to weaker and smaller market teams to try to make a super-team. Looking at several different theories, FC Barcelona was at fault for ‘tapping-up’ Cesc Fabregas to join the team.
                Looking at all the stakeholders in the case, the parties involved were FC Barcelona, Arsenal FC, and FIFA. Barcelona would gain a fantastic mid-fielder, wins in the league, and a chance to win more tournaments. While at the same time it cost them over $52 million and a loss of respect in the futbol world. They preached ‘Mes que un club’, which translates into more than a club. That was their philosophy of adding morals and values to running a club, which they did not hold up to. On the other hand, Arsenal lost the ‘nucleus’ of their team, the team captain, and the potential victories that Fabregas could have helped with. There are two sides of this debate, with mainly everyone who does not support  Barcelona upset about this transaction. Teams and fans around the world feared that the star of their team may be hoaxed by one of the bigger market teams to play for them. This was a clear cut case of being 'tapped-up' and FIFa did nothing about it to punish the club. This action leaves the possibly for other clubs to try to do that same exact thing without punishment.  
                According to the theory of Individualism, an organization cannot sway peoples’ opinions to help with their company. This means that it is unethical for companies to impact what people think in order to provide profit for their company. And that is exactly what the team did with Fabregas. The team convinced Cesc to come back to Spain to play through a variety of methods. They used players on the team, the news, and incentives to bring him to the club. They were not ethical with this theory overall. Their goal was to make money, but they did so in an unethical way by using other stars of the team to sway him to come play with them. Turning to Utilitarianism theory, it states that people should be happy with business deals. According to the paper by the author, Barcelona was only looking out for themselves and not the futbol community as a whole. By making this transaction, they upset Arsenal and their fan base as well as losing respect for their actions in acquiring a player in a shady way. People around the world were not very happy with this deal at all. It provided a window of opportunity for clubs with large bank accounts, to try to convince players to come and play for their team. This could ruin the game and the sense of competition around the world if there are a few teams that are stacked like fantasy teams. The third theory looked at by the author was Kantianism, this theory states a company must act rationally and act with good will. Barcelona did neither. They heavily persuaded Fabregas and looked out for their own gains. The club was persistently trying to convince Fabregas to join the team. They did not act rationally in the way they were going against their club motto. Barcalona did not act with any type of good will, because they broke the 'tapping-up' rule set up by FIFA. Dealing finally with the virtue theory, a company must have courage, justice, temperance, and honesty. With all these virtues, they acted too much or illegally. The author states that they had too much courage to talk to the player. The club was very open in their intentions with trying to acquire Fabregas from the Arsenal. They way Barcelona finally got him to the team and the methods they did so was illegal in they way they pestered Fabregas and broke the 'tapping-up' rule. Then after all that, they denied what they did was not illegal in the eyes of the futbol world which is not being honest with how persistent they were with their illegal actions.
                FC Barcelona did sign Cesc Fabregas with no penalty, and this set up a precedent that team could get away with ‘tapping-up’ players. In the near future, fans might see ‘fantasy teams’ being formed to try to run away from the competition. 

These facts and analyses are based on a paper by Mike Wysocki "FC Barcelona: The Cesc Fabregas Saga" (2012).

Dessipe, Sabrina, "FC Barcelona and "Tapping Up"" Barca Blaugranes. From the Sidelines, 31 July     2011. Web. 24 Apr, 2012.

Kelly, Rob. "Fifa Should Adopt the NBA approach to Tapping-up and Fine Barcelona for Their Pursuit of Arsenal Captain Cesc Fabregas." Sport. 23 May 2010. Web. 24 Apr, 2012. Http://

Mendes, Chris. "Classless Barcelona: Tapping up Fabregas and More Reasons Why the European Champions Lack Class." TalkSPORT, 15 July 2011. Web. 24 Apr, 2012. Http://

MirrorFootball. "Revealed: How Almost All of Barca's First Team Have Been Tapping up Cesc Fabregas." Cesc Fabregas Transfer: How Barcelona Stars Lionel Messi, Xavi, Iniesta, Pique and Puyol Have Publicly Tapped-up Arsenals Skipper. 115 July 2011. Web. 24 Apr, 2012. Http://

Padraig. "The Debate: Cesc Fabregas." Total Barca.5 July 2011. Web. 24 Apr, 2012. Http://

Sparks, Justin. "Arsenal Can Find Solace in Cesc Fabregas Sagafrom Barcelona's Latest Signing." Bleacher Report. 12 July 2011. Web. 24 Apr, 2012. Http://

TheHardTackle. "THT Debates: Barcelona Has crossed The Lin In The Cesc Fabregas Saga." 20 July 2011. Web. 24 Apr, 2012. Http://

"UnitedRant." Wenger Gets It Right and Oh so Wrong on 'Tapping Up.' 25 July 2011. Web. 24 Apr, 2012. Http://

Sunday, February 17, 2013

Pfizer's Illegal Testing on Nigerian Children Scandal (1996)

Based on a paper by: Corrigan Harreys and Carol Haskel
Summary by: Emily Klag

Pfizer is the largest research and development pharmaceutical company in the world. It develops, produces and markets many of the most popular prescription drugs on the market. Many of their products have helped advance health care, treatment and cures of diseases, as well as illness prevention in humans and animals. However, the company was involved in a major scandal in 1996, that was not revealed until December 2000, involving an experimental drug trial for trovafloxacin on Nigerian children the broke global ethical guidelines. 

 The drug, typically called Trovan, was manufactured to treat cerebrospinal meningitis. In the year 1996, there was a large outbreak of the disease in Nigeria's Kano district. Since cerebrospinal megingitis epidemics are rare in the United States, the company was eager to test this new drug on the Nigerians while there was still an opportunity. The drug trial was set up quickly and under hasty conditions to take full advantage of the outbreak. The company fraudulently provided an approval letter from the Nigerian Ethics Committee in order to start the research in the region. The corporation used children whose parents were panicking about their infected children. Pfizer often did not inform the parents that they were submitting their child for an experimental drug trial or that Trovan had never been tested on children before then.About 200 children were tested; the results ended with five deaths and multiple severely disabled children. After evidence was found, Pfizer quickly defended itself saying that it was proud of the way the trial was handled claiming that good medical practice and ethical norms were held up to standards. The rest of the world was not convinced and blamed the corruption of the Nigerian Administration that allowed the drug testing on the company. Since then, Nigerians have been skeptical of immunizations and will refuse them out of fear.

There are a few ethical theories that can be used to analyze the case including: Individualism, Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and virtue theory. In foresight, all of the ethical theories state that Pfizer's actions were unethical in this case except Individualism.

The first ethical theory to discuss is Individualism. It is a part of Milton Friedman’s economic theory that states a company should do what it can maximize the profit. However, while trying to maximize profit the company and government laws must be obeyed and enforced in order to remain in accordance to ethical standards. Therefore, Individualism encourages companies to grow and develop by increasing the amount of production. This ethical theory does not have an emphasis on customer happiness because making a profit is more important. Also, Individualism does not emphasize making a good name for the company because the company should be more focused on making money. Since profit and production needs were met by Pfizer, the scandal was not unethical according to Individualism.

Another ethical theory, Utilitarianism can be used to analyze the scandal. This type of ethical theory calls for overall happiness and production of causes for the great good of humanity. Pfizer neither created happiness for all nor ran the trial for greater good, even though the company may have thought they did, because they did not know that the drug trial would not cause any problems. The stakeholders of this case include Pfizer workers, researchers, and CEOs, as well as the Nigerian children, parents, and government. It also include the United States as a whole because the testing created a bad image for the country. The drug testing did not create happiness for Nigerians, caused multiple problems for the children, and ended with lawsuits. None of the above mentioned agree with Utilitarianism, therefore the scandal is unethical according to this ethical theory.

Kantianism is another ethical theory that can be used to analyze the issue. It deals with acting reasonably and respecting customers. Kantianism values fairness to customers and rational actions within the business. Pfizer lied by producing a fake letter of approval and was inhuman to the Nigerians because it did not inform the people of what was actually happening. The company was deceitful to the United States as well because the country was uninformed about what happened until long after the drug testing was finished. Overall the scandal is unethical in terms of Kantianism.

Finally, virtue theory deals with the positive image of a company by implementing guidelines for courage, honesty, temperance, and justice. Those qualities are considered highly important in virtue theory because they are what shapes a company's image. It also brings customer trust, which causes increase profit and production. Pfizer ignored all these good qualities in the scandal. The company was cowardly because it refused to admit to the fraud letter or to the fact that unethical standards were held during the Trovan testing. Those facts also are considered highly dishonest. The company was impatient because it did not wait to make sure the drug was safe or that the correct ethical guidelines were met. Researchers only cared about testing quickly so that the drug could be put on the market quicker to make a profit. Finally, the company was greatly unjust to the Nigerians. The people involved in the scandal were uninformed and mistreated. It is obvious that Pfizer did not meet the ethical standards of virtue theory.

These facts and analyses are based on an original research paper by Corrigan Harreys and Carol Haskel, "Pfizer" (2011).

Coleman, Sarah. "Nigeria Pfizer Scandal." World Press. April 2001. Web. 15 Feb. 2013.

"Pfizer Pharmaceutical Company." Pfizer. 2002-2013. Web. 17 Feb. 2013.

Salazar, Heather. "Kantian Business Ethics." Western New England University, Springfield. 1 Feb. 2013.

Salazar, Heather. Slideshow notes. Does Business Ethics make Economic Sense?

Salazar, Heather. Slideshow notes. Utilitarianism and Business Ethics

Cancer Chemicals in Johnson & Johnson Baby Shampoo (2009)

Cancer Chemicals in Johnson & Johnson Baby Shampoo (2009)

Based on the Paper: “Johnson & Johnson”
Written By: Kelsey Dawson
Summary By: Nicole Daly
            Johnson & Johnson was established in 1886 by three brothers Robert Wood Johnson, James Wood Johnson, and Edward Mead Johnson.  They are an American based multinational company that works with pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and consumer-packaged goods.  Johnson & Johnson is one of the highest grossing and most trusted, well respected names in the surgical and sanitary world.  Their headquarters is located in New Brunswick, NJ and they have over 250 companies in sixty countries.  Johnson & Johnson employs more than 118,000 people and are the most diverse medical devices and diagnostics company.  In 2009, The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics discovered that Johnson & Johnson manufactured their baby products with the ingredients quaternion-15 and 1, 4-dioxane, which releases formaldehyde.  Formaldehyde in high levels is known to cause cancer.  Johnson & Johnson failed to respect their customers by not informing them about the new, hazardous chemicals being put in their products.  Not only did Johnson & Johnson lose many of their customers, they also tarnished their reputation for the long term and may not be able to gain full respect back.

            Individualism, which comes from Milton Friedman’s economic theory, deals with maximizing profits for your company.  A company should forever be improving and increasing while obeying the laws.  These laws include both the company laws and government enforced laws.  Generally, individualism fails because it does not take into account stakeholder happiness.  Johnson & Johnson put off the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics request to remove the hazardous chemicals in their products for years.  Finally, in 2011, they began making some changes, but the consequences were already in effect.  Campaign for Safe Cosmetics protested and urged customers to be weary when making their purchases.  Individualism, for Johnson & Johnson, worked for the short term.  They were able to maximize profits with cheaper products with tainted chemicals, but for the long run, Johnson & Johnson struggled.  After consumers found out that their products could possibly cause cancer, they distrusted the Johnson & Johnson name.  Profits declined and their reputation was tarnished.

            The theory of Utilitarianism deals with everyone’s overall happiness.  This overall happiness extends to all stakeholders involved.  It states that one person’s happiness is no different than another’s, and therefore, it must be considered when making business decisions.  In the Johnson & Johnson case, the company failed to consider their customers happiness.  They were not looking out for their best interest, and they didn’t consider the potential health risks for their customers.  Not only are the children and babies using the products being put in harms way, but the caring parents are second guessing what products to purchase. These chemicals are severely dangerous to children.  None of this leads to stakeholder happiness short or long term.  Utilitarianism says that Johnson & Johnson are doing the exact opposite to make customers happy by intentionally putting hazardous chemicals in products and not informing their customers.

            Kantianism is an ethical theory that deals with acting reasonably and respecting customers.  Fairness and rational business are valued in Kantianism.  Johnson & Johnson acted in a selfish, controlling, deceitful way when adding cancer causing chemicals to their products.  Not only is that a problem under Kantianism, but then not informing customers of these chemicals is also an issue.  The products are not labeled with this information and at no point did Johnson & Johnson try to bring their customers up to date.  Kantianism would want Johnson & Johnson to report the use of these chemicals through different medias of communication and in the process be phasing out the chemicals.

            The virtue theory of business ethics deals with creating positive characteristics for a company.  Courage, honesty, control, and justice are significant to seeing the virtue theory through in a company.  These characteristic should be emphasized throughout the company.  Johnson & Johnson failed to comply with the virtue theory in every aspect.  They did not take responsibility for their products because if they did, they would have informed their customers of the chemicals.  Also, the chemicals should not have been put in the products to begin with.  Johnson & Johnson should have known better and in the process, had to ask their employees to act unethically when putting in the chemicals.  Whether they wanted to or not, it is not ethical to ask them to do that.  Johnson & Johnson disregarded all aspects of the virtue theory.

Based on the Paper: “Johnson & Johnson”
Written By: Kelsey Dawson

AP. “Johnson & Johnson Baby Shampoo.” The Huffington Post., 11 Jan. 2011. Web. 15 Apr. 2012. <>.

Associated Press. “Johnson and Johnson Starts Removing Toxins from Baby Products.” USA Today.  Gannett. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. <>.

Des Jardins, Joseph. (2009). An Indroduction to Business Ethics (Ed. 4) New York, NY : The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc

“Johnson & Johnson Answers Criticism and Concern about IIngredients in Its Baby Products.” The Star-Ledger. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. <>.

“Johnson & Johns on Baby Shampoo Still Contains Cancer-Causing Chemicals: Report.” International Business Times. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. <>.

Johnson, Linda A. “Groups Push J&J on Baby Shampoo Chemicals.” Yahoo! News. Yahoo!, 1 Nov. 2011. Web. 23 Apr. 2012. <>.

Professor Salazar. Slideshow notes. Does Business Ethics make Economic Sense?

Professor Salazar. Slideshow notes. Utilitarianism and Business Ethics.


Anthrax vaccination and the military : A Controversy By Danielle

Anthrax vaccination and the military : A Controversy 
By Danielle 
Based on the work done by Eric Richer

 Emergent BioSolutions, is considered to be one of the leading pharmaceutical companies located within the United States. With various locations held in the state of Maryland, this company states that their main goal is to, "Protect life" (About Us). In saying that, this company has effectively shown to produce and promote better living medical treatments including, vaccines. Emergent BioSolutions is the first and only company to produce an FDA approved vaccine for post-exposure protection against, bacillus anthracis otherwise known as anthrax. With every new treatment, comes the issue of ethical misconduct. Non-Synthetic anthrax spores can be found naturally occurring within the soil. However, recently used as a biological warfare weapon, anthrax is being found in far more unnatural settings. There has been an increasing amount of anthrax infection due to this advancement in biological warfare. Due to this, in 1998, 2.4 million active duty military personnel were ordered to get vaccinated against anthrax using the only FDA vaccine available produced by Emergent BioSolutions. The ethical controversy at hand would be whether or not, the military should allow individuals within the military the choice to choose between getting a vaccination or just making it a requirement.
                   In ordering military personal to  get vaccinated, the overall goal is to obtain a sense of mass safety. Therefore, one may argue that forcing the anthrax vaccine upon military personnel will provide them protection against disease which could only be a good thing.  However, with regards to individualism, the sense of  “goodness” through this act may be questioned. Individualism, "is the extent to which we value independence and personal uniqueness"(McShane, Von Glinow p.43). With regards to the anthrax vaccine, Emergent BioSolutions was the only company in 1998 to have FDA approval. In saying that, one can only assume the question,why is this the only company to produce anthrax vaccines? The approved vaccine is effective in the protection against skin contacted infected patients. The thing to consider here, is the fact that there are several others portals of entry for infection including, ingestion as well as inhalation. In only providing protection against one way of infection, complete immunity is not guaranteed which is one thing that the public may have overlooked. The anthrax vaccine was also proven to show many adverse and life threatening side effects in many individuals who were vaccinated. Also, the vaccine has not been present long enough to determine any potentially fatal long term effects. With all of these potentially harmful negative qualities of the vaccine, individuals should be given the choice as to whether or not they wish to be vaccinated. In this example, not only was the military seen to be acting ethically irresponsibly through forcing vaccination however, one may begin to question the approval standards of the FDA. Although the effort to protect their soldiers against disease was seen to be noble, military personnel should not have to be vaccinated against a one entry possible infection especially with the known adverse side effects. In saying that, the mandatory vaccination did indeed deny the ability of military personnel  individualistic "rights". Unless willing to not participate in military actions, these individuals were not given the ability to promote personal freedom as well as control over their life

With regards to Utilitarianism  the idea of implementing happiness in soldiers was not considered however, the overall idea of mass safety was. Although the act of promoting health among military personnel was a noble effort in preventing mass infection, the act of making it mandatory may be seen as ethically controversial. In relating this issue to kantianism theory, the activity of the military may not be seen to be viewed as "rational" simply for the fact that, they "forced" a vaccine that is not viewed to provide full immunity for every affected individual. Therefore, infection could still occur with or without the vaccination. The military did not respect the decision to choose whether or not an individual wants to be vaccinated by making the practice mandatory. In relating virtue theory to the military's actions, one could conclude that the interest of the individuals affected was not honest nor did it promote justice. Unless previously noted prior to joining the military force, individuals were most likely unaware that they must get an anthrax vaccination. Therefore, it was dishonest of the military to force upon regulations stating that getting a vaccination was mandatory. Also, disregarding the idea of refusal, the military did not inflict justice upon the individuals who were to be vaccinated. Overall, it can be concluded that due to the creation of a the anthrax vaccine through BioSolutions, some acts of the military were seen to be ethically controversial.
Works Cited

Based on the work done by Eric Richer

Source One

"About Us Page | Emergent." About Us Page | Emergent. Emergent BioSolutions Inc., n.d. Web. 17 Feb. 2013.
Source Two
"ANTHRAX VACCINE." National Gulf War Resource Center, n.d. Web. Jan.-Feb. 2013.
SO       Source Three
             McShane, Steven Lattimore., and Mary Ann Von Glinow. "Chapter Two." Organizational Behavior. New   York: Irwin/McGraw-Hill, 2012. N. pag. Print.
            Source Four
            Salazar Heather. "Kantian Business Ethics." Western New England University, Springfield. 1 February 2012. 
             Source Five

Salazar Heather. "Utiliarianism and Business Ethics." Western New England University. Springfield. 30 

January 2012.

Source Six

Whittrock, Agela. "Michigan." N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Feb. 2013.


Starbucks Scolded for Stifling Competition (2006)

Based on paper by Ben Kapinos and Jahmel Rollins
Summary by Katie Eckert

Starbucks is very well known and also considered to be the leading coffee company in the world.
Starbucks was originally started as one store but has since developed into over 17,000 stores in many different countries and is expected to grow more and more rapidly within the next few years. Starbucks originated in Seattle, Washington in 1971. They are continually putting more and more smaller coffee shops out of business. Starbucks had a lawsuit against them for using anti-competitive tactics to get rid of their competitors. Starbucks employees would hand out free samples of their own coffee right outside of the small coffee shops in their neighborhoods, gaining more business and profit for themselves. They would try to buyout all other coffee shops near them. They would also sign leases for 3 times as much as the market value so that landlords wouldn't rent to other coffee sellers. One example was a small coffee shop in Boston, MA had been running for 25 years when all of a sudden their property manager would not renew their lease however, the next renters of that property was Starbucks. This does not seem like a coincidence. Kapinos and Rollins writes, "Trying to buyout her company so there was no other competition on the block". This was one of the examples of what Starbucks was doing to small companies when the lawsuit was filed.
          These actions and procedures by Starbucks are very unethical according to the Utilitarian, Kantian, and virtue theories. The only theory Starbucks would be considered ethical under would be the individualism theory. According to the individualism theory Starbucks would be considered ethical because everything that they are doing and the actions that are taking out are to maximize their profits. Individualism would consider Starbucks to be ethical in every way because they are substantially gaining profits by expanding their business and making more and more Starbucks' around the world. They are gaining and not losing any profit in doing what they are doing; therefore this is ethical under this theory. If you look at this from a Utilitarianism point of view Starbucks' actions would be unethical due to the fact that small coffee stores give more to the people of the towns they are located than a Starbucks does. Many people love the idea of a small local coffee shop in their towns with reasonably priced coffee. Some people would be happy with a Starbucks instead of their small coffee shop but the majority of people enjoy their local coffee shops. I believe that even as a person who loves Starbucks you wouldn't want to see a coffee shop that has been in the town for years go out of business. Small coffee shops bring more happiness to more people than Starbucks does. Starbucks' high and overpriced coffee is also another ethical issue under the utilitarianism theory. Starbucks can charge such high prices because most people will still buy their coffee anyways, especially if they run all of the other coffee shops out of the neighborhood. The stakeholders of this issue are the Starbuck's stockholders, Starbucks coffee drinkers, and especially small coffee businesses. All of these people are affecting by the actions that Starbucks is acting out.                                     
       Starbucks' actions are also unethical under the Kantianism theory because they are disregarding small businesses to gain their own profits and being completely selfish. They are destroying these small coffee businesses and running them out of business just so they gain more customers and profits, which is unethical according to this theory and the formula of humanity. Starbucks is treating people as a way to make profit and not as valuable people. Their expansion techniques are not coming from goodwill and they are not rightfully motivated. Another aspect of the Kantianism theory that is unethical about Starbucks' actions is regarding the formula of autonomy. This formula states that the company must follow the legislation that they have set for themselves. Starbucks' does not do this because their motto is about treating each other with respect and dignity. They clearly do not follow this model because they don't show respect or dignity to the people of the community and the owners and customers of the local coffee shops that they are continuing to put out of business. 
Under the virtue theory Starbucks is once again considered unethical because they opened many of their stores too quickly so that the smaller businesses would go out sooner. However, this plan failed and they ended up having to close their stores because they were prematurely opened. Starbucks also did not act virtuous for other reasons such as them paying way more than the market value of certain leases to kick competitors out. This is not ethical at all especially under this theory.
       Starbucks is unethical under every theory except for the individualism theory, where their only concern and goal is to make profit, which is exactly what they do. Starbucks is purposely and selfishly putting small coffee shops out of business to gain more profit disregarding many of the stakeholders including the customers and owners of these small coffee businesses that are losing business and having to close. Many of their actions are extremely unethical and unjust. 

These facts are based on the original research paper by Ben Kapinos and Jahmel Rollins "Exchange, inc. V.   Starbucks
                Corp" (2006)
Argenti, Paul A. "Collaborationg with Activists: HOW STARBUCKS WORKS WITH NGOS." California Management
                review 47.1 (2004): 91-116. Business Source Premier. EBSCO. Web. 19 Sept 2011 
"Business & Technology | Starbucks Sued over "unchecked Ambition" Seattle Times Newspaper." The Seattle Times
                 Seattle Times Newspaper. Web. 19 Sept. 2011. Http://
"Ethical approach of Starbucks in hard to swollow even as downturn changes consumer priorities; UK Business" Times
                 [London, England] 27 Nov. 2008: 68. Academic OneFile. Web. 19 Sep. 2011.
"Our mission statement." Web. <>.
"Owner of Small Coffee Shop Takes on Java Titan" News, Travel, Weather, Entertainment, 
                 Sports, Technology, U.S. & World- 20 Dec. 2006. Web. 19 Sept. 2011.
"Starbucks Faces Monopoly Charges in Lawsuit-sep. 26, 2006"-CNNMoney-Business. Financial and Personal Finance 
                 News. 26 Sept. 2006. Web. 19 Sept. 2011. <>

Boeing Scandel - All for Themselves, January 2003 By Ryan Critelli, Based on Essay by James Ciejka and Keith Maynard.

By Ryan Critelli Based on a research paper by James Ciejka and Keith Maynard.

Boeing Company was established in 1916 by William E. Boeing in Seattle, Washington. Their main focus was aerospace and defense contracting and were considered to be the company surpassing all the others with ease. Seattle also was the birthplace of Boeing Company's first aircraft manufacturing plant. The first contract obtained by, who would be the largest aeronautical manufacturer of all time, Boeing was during the time of WWI for the United States Navy. Their reputation grew quickly after the Navy had only ordered two of their aircraft and slowly but surely they became known and when WWII struck they developed the B-52 bomber which is one of the most famous aircraft of all time. Along with military contracts, they diversified, and obtained contracts with NASA and specialized in space aeronautics. Next came more contracts with the military and consistently were building a solid reputation while being backed by the entire military for their engineering developments of military technologies and vehicles. Boeing has any wheres from 150,000 to 170,000 employees all with traits that their company values and wants to stay present. They created a program to help inspire engineers and other scientist to create new products and do so in an efficient manor. Other programs also were created mainly to help their public image. For example, programs were created to find different alternatives to jet fuel that would be much better to the environment. Overall, Boeing has become the world's leader in aeronautical developments and continues to grow everyday.

In January 2003, one of Boeing most prominent scandals broke out and had to be dealt with. Darleen Druyun, who was a Air Force procurement officer, was hired by Boeing and was named the Vice President of Boeing's defense missile systems. Her main flaw that also made her good at her job was the fact that she was an absolute perfectionist. This led to her scolding Lockheed Martin for "crappy designs" and "pitiful software". The main part of the scandal though was the hiring of family members into the company without having positions available and the contracts being won at an alarming rate. Mike Sears, CFO of Boeing Company, actually created these positions just so that Druyun was able to fill them will family members. Druyun's son-in-law and daughter both were hired by Boeing, both of which had positions created for them. Her daughter though had problems with the company and faced being fired because of poor performance. Druyun stepped in though and prevented this for obvious reasons. The only reason Druyun was able to do this was because she was granted a very high level position in return for Boeing's illegally obtained government contracts that were all approved and obtained by Druyun. She created position and filled them with family member and in return to Boeing approved and upgraded many of their illegal government contracts. Although this worked for a while, she was fired from Boeing Company along with Mike Sears who also contributed to the scandal. Sears used these scandals to get ahead of the CEO Phillip Condit because he was in a struggle against him for control of the company. Druyun plead guilty to conspiracy for negotiating for a job and spent 9 months in prison. Sears pleaded guilty and was convicted of aiding and abetting and spent 4 months in prison.
Boeing as a whole took a huge hit because of the choices made by them and ended up having to pay $1.1 billion in ethics settlements to the U.S. government. Government officials have also appointed two new task forces to investigate Druyun operations since 1992. Lastly, it hit the government because they had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in restitution's for the cost of the illegal government bids won by Boeing. The stakeholder in this case were Mike Sears, Darleen Druyun, anyone involved at Boeing and also within the sector of the government where these contracts were given to Boeing.

Ethical theory consist of five main parts, Kantianism, Individualism, Utilitarianism, Social Contract theory, and lastly virtue theory. Individualism is defined as the moral emphasis of the individual. It is an ego based ethical theory that has right based restraints. Basically it is the ability to pursue ones own interests but do not make choices for others that alter their interest in anyway. In this case it could be seen as quick business decision by Sears and Druyun that made them millions and in Druyun's case jobs and futures for family members. Long-term though on the other hand the public view was terribly diminished and it crushed the economical standpoint of the company. As far as this theory goes, Sears and Druyun followed it to a tee. They acted completely out of one's own interest instead of society as a whole. They saw their own worth as more important than the value of the entire company's worth and acted based upon that principle. Utilitarianism states that you must maximize happiness for yourself and others. This clearly was violated in this case because it was all for themselves and nothing good came out of this scandal for the company. Stakeholders on each side of the scandal's happiness was not maximized in anyway therefore this theory would have to disagree with the actions by Sears and Druyun presented in this case. The company suffered a major set back by the amount of money they had to pay back to it's contracts and government, but more importantly lost the name it ha worked so hard to achieve. Sears and Druyun made millions with the scandal so at the time it seemed that their happiness was considered to be at almost the highest level possible, but when both were sentenced to lengthy prison sentences and hefty fines that took a dramatic change for the worst.  Kantianism consist of many principles but the main ones that apply to this case are to act rationally, respect people and their autonomy, and be motivated by good will. It also consist of the idea that good will only comes from doing an act out of duty instead of out of personal need and desire. A constant word used by Kant in his philosophies is universalise. All principles behind choosing an action must by universalise. In other words the formula for humanity is clearly derived as motivation for every action must be the good of humanity. Druyun and Sears clearly did not act ethically or follow any of the previous principles because they kept their deal going with each other which only benefited themselves. They completely shut out their company and only benefited themselves as a result of their actions. Kantianism clearly does not agree with the actions that took place in this scandal because their actions were not derived from the good of humanity. Virtue Theory has 4 main characteristics that are as follows; courage, honestly,Self control, Justice/Fairness.  All of the previously stated problems with this scandal violate every single characteristic of the Virtue Theory. There was absolutely no honesty and self control during the scandal but when they were found out and exposed the other two kicked in played their role to the fullest. For courage, they both openly admitted to their mistakes and faced the consequences professionally, and for justice they "got what they had coming to them". They deserved the jail time and extensive fines that they received. The last ethical theory is Social Contract, which states that " the view that persons' moral or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live". Druyun's actions were not socially benefiting, they were self-benefiting. This also goes along with Boeing Company itself. They worried about ways to maximize profits instead of reasonable profits for their top grade company.

In the end, on major hit was the biggest one of all. Their brand name took a huge smack by the public for what they did. Here was this incredibly huge company that absolutely crushed the competition and they hurt themselves by being conceited and completely self centered. This can be fixed by educating employees on ethical decisions, monitoring top employees, and carrying out punishment to the fullest extent so an environment is created where ethics are displayed correctly.

This analysis is based on an original research paper by James Ciejka and Keith Maynard.

Boeing Reaches Settlement with US Government Over Druyun Scandal. (n.d.). Daily defense news for military procurement managers, contractors, policy makers. Retrieved from
Ciejka, James. Maynard, Keith. "Boeing PH 211." Diss. Western New England University, 2012. Print. 
CorpWatch : Boeing Scandal Part of Deeper Problems at Pentagon. (n.d.). CorpWatch : Index. Retrieved from
Guilty plea in Boeing hiring scandal - (n.d.). Seattle news, sports, events, entertainment | - Retrieved from
The Seattle Times. (n.d.). Retrieved from URL

FutureFuel Corporation Goes Cleaner

FutureFuel Corporation
FutureFuel Corporation Cleans Their Act Up (2005)

Synopsis of Dan Monahan

             Summary by Joseph Zeidler

     FutureFuel Corporation is involved in the biofuel industry along with chemical supplies. Founded in 2005, with headquarters in Batesville, Arkansas, this company was founded more than 30 years ago, known as Eastman SE. FutureFuel is a leader in the United States of America in the biofuel industry, meanwhile, they also specialize in chemical manufacturing. FutureFuel’s main goal is to become the leader in biofuel.
Biodiesel fuel is the main controversy for this company because biodiesel fuel has more dangers to the environment than crude oil. FutureFuel Corporation is currently trying to make biodiesel safer for the environment. Recently though, studies have shown that biodiesel fuel is much worse for the environment than what some may suggest. "The leaked study has shown that more greenhouse gases are created when the use of Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) is used to create biodiesel. ILUC occurs to clear lands such as forests and wetlands to create space for the production of biodiesel" (Monahan 2). Biodiesel fuel currently has two ingredients that a harm to the environment more than fossil fuels, which are palm oil and soybeans. These two ingredients currently use 103g and 105g of carbon. Though this may seem harmful, some biodiesel fuels are less than what studies suggest. This is the use of 2G Biodiesel and 2G Ethanol, which have a carbon footprint of 9g. "In FutureFuel's 2012 annual report the company has reacted to the studies by only using biodiesel from feedstock with high levels of fatty acids. Such feedstock would be vegetable oils or animal fats. The company is staying away from the production of biodiesel that is harmful for the environment and using cleaner versions" (Monahan 4).
     These studies are only in the development stages but this controversy brings in an ethical dilemma upon FutureFuel Corporation. This type of problem makes the thoughts about biodiesel fuel negative and shows that this may not be the best option for FutureFuel Corporation. With this controversy at the front door of the company, one may look at four ethical theories to learn about the company; individualism, utilitarianism, Kantian, and the virtue theory. For FutureFuel, three theories are involved in their work, utilitarianism, Kantian, and the virtue theory. Meanwhile, individualism is not one of the theories that FutureFuel follows.
     Individualism is the practice of maximizing profits for the stakeholders which is the only obligation a company has. This theory was first created by Milton Friedman, where he said "The only goal of business is to make a profit" (Salazar 13). This theory means that the company, FutureFuel, is only to make a profit that helps the company. 
     For FutureFuel Corporation, Individualism is not using this theory in business ethics. The company has found that negative studies have and will be coming out against biofuel harming the environment and because of this; FutureFuel is changing the views and becoming more environmentally friendly. If profits were the main concept for FutureFuel, environment safety would not be a major concern. Instead, the company is changing the ways they produce the biofuel. This company has not maximized it profits, due to outside sources affected their profits. These outside sources are word of mouth, such as individuals bad mouthing the company and their work with biofuel. Another outside source, to prove that they are not maximizing their profits is that they are going against the grain and trying to change the way they produce biofuel, such as making it cleaner, which in turn takes away from profits due to being more expensive.
    Though the company does not follow the Individualism theory, Utilitarianism is something that this company does indeed do. This company has created happiness through using acceptable ways to produce biodiesel fuel. Besides working on changing ways of producing biodiesel fuel, FutureFuel also has used the utilitarianism theory by creating a happy society by reducing dependence on foreign oil. This benefits the American society solely based on not having to depend on foreign oil. Inside of the utilitarianism are the stakeholders. The stakeholder of FutureFuel Corporation is the Earth. This company also affects people that live on the Earth.  
     The Kantian theory on the other hand is that an individual shall do what is right because that is the right thing to do. It also suggests that individuals shall be motivated by goodwill and doing selfless activities. This theory lets people choose rational decisions. Inside this theory there are three formulas that can be looked in to; the Universal Law, Humanity, and Autonomy.
     With this definition, FutureFuel Corporation is clearly acting within the Kantian theory. This company is committing to the theory by creating a cleaner biodiesel fuel. This is simply for the better of the environment rather than for the company itself. This shows that rather than making a profit and selling millions gallons of gas, the company is gaining support from some that may not like the biodiesel fuel concept. The main formula that this company is using is the Formula of Humanity. This formula has humanity, which is rationality. For this, the company is acting rational by changing the ways that they produce biofuel. Next, is the end part of the formula, which is something valuable in itself, for its own sake. This agrees because they are giving up valuable profits to perfect the biofuel. Finally is means, which is something that is valuable as a way to get something else. For this, the company is they creating cleaner fuel while they hope to gain positive feedback from individuals that think biofuel is something negative.  
     The last theory that will be covered is the virtue theory. This theory consists of four major characteristics that are covered; courage, honesty, temperance and self control, and justice and fairness. FutureFuel Corporation corresponds with all of these theories. First, with courage, this company takes a stand against doing harmful things to the environment. This company has honesty due to the fact that they have made the problems known and that they are going to try and fix the problem at hand. As far as temperance, the company has a reasonable way to get a hold of the problem. Then, for justice and fairness, the company deals with fair practices. This means, that the company is going to solve the problems that the company faces and will do so respectfully to the environment. 
FutureFuel Corporation has gained a large profit through biodiesel fuel, which has been under criticism for harming the environment. This company has done many ethical things since finding that the fuel harms the environment but they have taken many actions to finding ways to create cleaner fuel. 

These facts and analyses are based on an original research paper by Dan Monahan “FutureFuel Corporation” (2012)
FutureFuel. (2012, March 15). FutureFuel Investor Relations. Retrieved from 
Salazar, H (2012, January 22). Business Ethics and Economic's and Individualism 2011. Powerpoint Presented through Kodiak on