The Concussion Lawsuit Against The National Hockey League (2016)

The Concussion Lawsuit Against The National Hockey League (2016)

Controversy

The National Hockey League Logo

The National Hockey League was established in 1917 as the main professional hockey league in the world. Its focus has been to provide entertainment for fans, by displaying the world’s top hockey talent. The league draws many highly skilled players from all over the world and currently has players from approximately 20 different countries. Like any professional sports organization, the league thrives off this talent they put on display, and that is what has made the NHL so successful over the years.

In 2013, former National Hockey League players filed a lawsuit against the league for their neglect towards the issue of concussions in the NHL. The NHL has been fighting the validity of the case since it has been filed, but in 2016, a U.S. District judge in Minnesota refused to dismiss the case. (Dobuzinskis, 2016) This validates the case in a sense that the judge saw the actions by these former players as reason for legal recourse. For years, the NHL has tried to avoid addressing the issue of concussions in hockey. The reality is, hockey is a fast-paced, violent sport that can result in many serious injuries, concussions being the most common.        

Dr. Bennet Omalu

 We have seen concern regarding concussions emerge as years go on, especially in the National Football League, where Dr. Bennet Omalu discovered the correlation between playing football and concussions. His studies went on to show how concussions lead to a condition called CTE (Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy) which is a degenerative brain disease derived from multiple concussions over time. This is the concern that the former NHL players have, that concussions players receive throughout their hockey careers could lead to permanent brain damage such as CTE. The Minnesota judge confirmed these players concerns as valid by refusing to throw out the case when appealed by the NHL. The NHL’s actions towards this lawsuit are reflective of how they have treated concussions and player safety over time. There has always been a sense of neglect when it comes to how active the National Hockey League is in taking care of the overall health of their players.

 Hockey players are known as ‘tough guys’, for example, players have been known to get injuries from play such as cuts stitched up during a game and return to that same game to play. We are talking about guys who get hit with 95+ mph slap shots in the face, and only miss part of that same game before returning. As a league, the NHL likes the idea of their players being known as these ‘tough guys’ because the fans and viewers at home know that hockey is a rough and tough sport. As tough as these players are, player safety is no joke, and the players themselves have spoken out more and more over the years about the league’s neglect towards player safety.

Stakeholders

Stakeholders are anyone who is affected by the actions of a company. The stakeholders in this NHL case are the league, the players, the players’ families, fans, and the teams. The league and the players are obviously the most directly affected by the situation, being the two who are  in the legal suit. Though, one must be mindful of all the people who branch off both the league and the players. For the league, the teams within the league are effected by concussions, losing players to injury quite often due to the length and seriousness of a head injury, teams can lose players that have a positive impact on their team’s ability. Missing these players could negatively affect team revenue, if the team is missing their star player then they could lose a percentage of fan interest. As for the player’s side, players and their families are both negatively affected by concussions, and even more-so if these concussions lead to brain damage later in life. Lastly, the fans are the ones who keep the league going, their support and opinions are what matter to the league because the fans are their source of income, this makes the fans a crucial stakeholder in this dilemma.

Individualism

            Individualism focuses on maximizing profits while staying within the constraints of the law. Individualism is very relevant in this case, obviously, like any business, the NHL’s goal is to maximize profits for their organization. Yet, the second part of individualism is tricky, is putting these players at risk of serious injury within constraints of the law? This is the issue that the former players filed the suit based on. The NHL makes money off these players going out on the ice and putting their well-being on the line. Many careers of players will be cut short due to injury, such as Marc Savard, a

Marc Savard playing for the Boston Bruins

player forced into retirement due to an excessive number of head injuries in 2010. He was considered to be one of the league's top players when he played for the Boston Bruins before his career came to an abrupt end due to concussions. The NHL would make the case that the danger they expose their athletes to is not illegal. The players are required to sign contracts to play in the NHL and the league would argue that the players know what they are signing up for. The players may make a case, however, that the NHL has not done extensive enough research to present the possible risk of head injuries involved with playing pro hockey. So, although it is certain that the NHL is maximizing its profits, whether or not they are abiding by the law is, to a degree, in question.

Utilitarianism

Passionate Fans Frustrated with the 2012-13 NHL Lockout

            Utilitarianism is based on happiness of stakeholders. Basically, the idea behind utilitarianism is to make decisions that don’t necessarily always bring in the highest profit, but rather make decisions that benefit all of your stakeholders. Because the ethical dilemma is between two stakeholders in the company, it is clear that utilitarianism was not being considered by the NHL. The players are arguably the largest stakeholder in the National Hockey League. Obviously, the reason this Concussion Suit was filed is because there is a large percentage of the players who are unhappy with the league’s concern for their well-being. If the NHL is neglecting a stakeholder, then clearly they are not working to try and make them happy. When the players and the league are in disagreement, it often results in none of the stakeholders being happy. The league and the players have had disagreements before, and these disagreements do not always go well, the last issue seen was an NHL Lockout in 2012-2013 which resulted in half of the hockey season being missed due to the failure to agree on a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. This situation left no stakeholders happy, so as you can see the NHL does not have the best history of keeping stakeholders happy, especially the players themselves. The players filing a lawsuit against the league is just another instance of the two disagreeing on crucial issues within the game of hockey.

Kantianism

            Kantianism is based around rational decision making, autonomy of individuals, and honesty and freedom (Salazar, 20). Kantianism focuses on good will, and not performing unethical actions under any circumstances, such as using people for your own personal gain. Overall, it seems that Immanuel Kant, the philosopher behind the idea of Kantianism, believed in being true to people while doing what is right.

            The NHL is not following Kantianism because of their use of their players. The players were not fully briefed on the long-term risks that come with head injuries from playing hockey. This can certainly be seen as the league using their players for their own personal gain, while the players are underinformed about the risks of injury. The league is not being true with their players and therefore they are not following the ways of Kantianism. This hinders the players’ ability to make rational decisions about playing hockey, or treating their head injuries. Often, players are more focused on getting back out and playing rather than resting when they are concussed, this is likely due to the league’s lack of informing players about the true dangers of concussions and long term brain damage.

Virtue Theory

            Virtue Theory judges a one’s character based on a variety of characteristics that are believed to make an individual virtuous. A person or entity has virtues which decide whether or not this person is succeeding or not. Such virtues can be characteristics such as intelligence, honesty, care, compassion and many more that contribute to a virtuous person. The reason these four characteristics are important in the disagreement between the NHL and its players are because these are characteristics that the league is not displaying by conducting themselves in the manner that they have been for years. They have not been intelligent about how to handle concussions and researching how to prevent concussions, they have not been honest with their players about the risk of concussions, and of course, this dishonestly leads to lack of care and compassion for their players, a major stakeholder in the organization.

Justified Ethics Evaluation

I personally believe the NHL is acting unethically in their lack of attention towards concussions and the risks that they include. Player safety seems to be a real issue within the league at the moment, and it seems as though instead of working with the players to achieve a safer environment, they are denying that concussions are even an issue. If there enough players stepping up to file a lawsuit against the league, it is clear that concussions are in issue that the NHL needs to address.

References:

Dobuzinskis, Alex. "Concussion Lawsuit against NHL Can Proceed: U.S. Judge in

Minnesota." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 18 May 2016. Web. 06 Apr. 2017.

"NHL Concussion Litigation: Alleging National Hockey League Concealed Risks of   

Concussions." NHL Concussion Litigation: Alleging National Hockey League Concealed Risks of Concussions. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLC. Web. 06 Apr. 2017.

Salazar, Heather. "The Business Ethics Case Manual." The Authoritative Step-by-Step Guide to

Understanding and Improving the Ethics of Any Business (2014) Web. 06 Apr. 2017.

Active NHL Players Totals by Nationality ‑ 2011‑12 Stats." QuantHockey. Web. 06 Apr. 2017.

Wheeler, Scott. "Marc Savard on Health and Life after Hockey." Stanley Cup of Chowder.

Stanley Cup of Chowder, 26 Aug. 2016. Web. 06 Apr. 2017.

Is GameStop ripping off it's Customers? (2010)

By Alexis Javier-Gomera

Controversy

Power to the Player

           GameStop might seem like the kind of store that all players would love. Has the newest game, pre-order bonuses, is always well informed so it can answer any questions you might have, as all the accessories when it comes to games. Publishing a magazine by the name of Game Informer. Everything that they did was for the customers and the player, proof of their slogan 'Power to the Player'. But does that mean that they care for their customers? Do they really care about them in the first place? While GameStop does have genuine care for their customers and the employees themselves doesn't try to cheat out the customers. There is no denying the fact that there are some "deals" that GameStop has that would be better if they didn't exist at all. Some of the few example would be the trade deal, where you would bring in any number of games and/or console and can trade it for real cash or store credit. With this you can trade in your old games that you either don't want or got bored of it, even those games that you bought by mistake, and get back money from it. It can sound good on paper but that only last until you trade. For one, you get little amount of money back. You could have bought a new console that just came out recently (like the Nintendo Switch) to trade and you get back only 20-30% of the total price that you paid for it. So far nothing has been done about this and in fact seem like GameStop knows what it's doing.
Stakeholders
           Stakeholders are the party that are involved in the transaction. In this case, it would be the customers, which are the gamers or family members of said gamers, and the employees. None of the party are at fault about this. The employees are just doing their job, they have no say on how the deals goes and only says what they were told to say. The customers, however, are obviously not happy in the less bit about almost getting cheated on by the company that they believe tried to satisfy them to the fullest. Or at least that would be the case if the customers noticed how they are getting ripped off. As it stands, they don't know that they are selling their game, console, or accessories at a lower price than what they should rightfully get if their items are in mint condition.

Individualism
           Individualism is the habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant as well as the profit that is made in the process. This was not in favor of the consumers and were instead in favor of GameStop. GameStop gained more money by giving away as little as possible back to the customers. Because they were getting the games and consoles back, they could easily refurbish it and getting it working as good as new. Sell it for a lower, but still high, price for the next person to buy it. Rinse, repeat and the executives of GameStop find themselves making more money than ever. In a way, it can almost be argued that GameStop did the trade deal so that they can get the game back and sell it again without having to buy the same copy too many times, and when a game becomes broken beyond repair then they throw it out and buy a new one to replace it.

Utilitarianism
          Utilitarianism is the doctrine where any action is made to make the majority happy. And it does do that but only when it doesn't come down to any return deals that they make. Selling games and console, telling about the latest release and information, and being nice in general is the right way on doing things, which was what brought satisfaction to the customers. The trading, however, doesn't help the company when it does get noticed by the customers. Customers can easily get angry when it comes to them buying stuff as well as making deals with the employee and it doesn’t go their way. If they don't believe they are getting the best, like any other customers everywhere else, they'll end up complaining and the employee will get exasperated and no one would win.

Kantianism
          Kantianism states that if something is harming someone or something then it is unethical and not rational in the least. This doesn't exactly harm anyone physically. In the end, you do get money back from a game and/or console that you didn't want anymore and wanted to get rid of it. It's mostly the principal of things. Given the game cost a good amount of money but then you soon found out that you didn't like it so you're returning it, only to find that you don't even get half of your money back for it. For games that you had for years is understandable since you had it for a long time and it got old as well, but for a game that you only had for a week or so and had more than enough? That’s the sort of thing that is not rational as the company is ripping people with the deal that sounds good in general when it actuality it can be in a way, robbery.

So sad even the Xbox is crying

Virtue Theory
           Virtue Theory is where if something is functioning the way it should, then it is happy. GameStop was technically being honest about their deals and about the trade function. That doesn't mean that everyone that walked out of the store were happy. GameStop managers gains more by the deal than the customers and that's very unethical. The employees don’t have any say in how much they can give back to the customers as everything is done by the computer. It can't be considered ethical of the employees since they let it happen for who knows how long. So, in all this, it can be considered unethical since the manager doesn't change how the trade system works. The same couldn’t be said about the employees since they don’t like the trade one bit.

Justification Ethics Evaluation
          The actions of both the manager of GameStop and the employees aren't that justified as neither tried to work in a way that can leave the customers satisfied. While this is a small thing compared to everything else that GameStop does for the gamers. You would think that a company that has the slogan 'Power to the player' would do everything they can to give the best of the best for the customers, and that includes the trade system. The fact that this has been going for a long as anyone can remember, there's no way the manager hasn't noticed the unfairness that this was doing. Especially with how the customers has social media to recount their tales about GameStop. The words would have gone to the manager eventually, so the fact that nothing is changing just shows how little he cares.

References

Does GameStop try to rip you off? (n.d.). Retrieved from GameSpot: https://www.gamespot.com/forums/offtopic-discussion-314159273/does-gamestop-try-to-rip-you-off-26792485/

Gaudiosi, J. (2012 , April 16). An Employee Believes GameStop's Used Game Racket Would Be Illegal If Government-Regulated. Retrieved from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/04/16/an-employee-believes-gamestops-used-game-racket-would-be-illegal-if-government-regulated/#51d6a1d64e2c

Mueller, J. (2014, August 6). Gamestop ripping customers off now more than ever. Retrieved from TechnologyTell: http://www.technologytell.com/gaming/133161/gamestop-ripping-customers-now-ever/

St. Louis Cardinals: Hacking of the Houston Astros Database (2013)

The Case

     The St. Louis Cardinals are a Major League Baseball team that play in the National League.  The team has a long and successful history stretching back to the 19th century with a total of 13 division titles, 19 National League pennants, and 11 World Series titles.  The Houston Astros are also a Major League Baseball team that plays in the American League.  A relatively new team to the MLB, they have six division titles and one National League pennant.  For most of their tenure in the MLB, they played in the National League along with the Cardinals but have just recently moved to the American League in 2013.  Right around this time, in June of 2014, the Houston Astros reported a data breach of servers which resulted in a leak of months of internal trade talks.  The leak was first reported by the Astros' General Manager Jeff Luhnow, a former Cardinal's employee.  Luhnow started in St. Louis as the vice president of baseball development and had worked his way up to the head of scouting and player development for the Cardinals organization.  Luhnow was critical in getting players that helped win the Cardinals a World Series in 2011 and after that season the Astros wanted him for their GM position taking several Cardinals employees with him.  An official F.B.I investigation was started in wake of the 2014 breach.  By 2015 it was announced that the Cardinals were being looked into.  The F.B.I was investigating the St. Louis Cardinals organization to see if current employees were involved the hack.  What they found was that Cardinals officials hacked the database housing all the player information for the Houston Astros.  Cardinals chairman Bill

Chris Correa:  Former Scouting Director for the Cardinals

DeWitt issued a statement saying the Cardinals had nothing to do with the breach and it was carried out by a group of rogue individuals.  In the end, only one employee was found at fault, Chris Correa, the the scouting director for the Cardinals.
     Correa was able to get into the database by guessing a similar password that was used by a former Cardinals employee that now works for the Astros.  It is still unclear at this time who's password Correa used but he may have had access to the database after the 2011 season, when Luhnow left for the Astros job.  Correa had access to their passwords because when these employees left they had to turn in their team-issued laptops.  These laptops were returned at the time to Correa who was in charge of wiping them for re-purposing.  The former employees had to leave their passwords so Correa could get in.  Correa was promptly fired and soon after placed in custody.  Authorities say Correa, "hacked the email system and was able to view 118 pages of confidential information, including notes of trade discussions, player evaluations and a 2014 team draft board that had not yet been completed." (ESPN, 2016)  Correa accessed the Astros database five times from 2013 to 2014 and improperly downloaded several files but may have accessed the database more than five times.  In January of 2016 Correa plead guilty to five counts of unauthorized access of a protected computer.  In July of 2016 he was sentenced to 46 months in prison and fined $280,000.  He had originally faced five years for each individual charge and began serving his time 6 weeks from sentencing.  Once the trial had concluded, Rob Manfred, commissioner of Major League Baseball, handed down a punishment.  The Cardinals would be fined 2 million dollars, the maximum penalty, and would lose their top two draft picks in the next draft.  Luck for the Cardinals their first round pick had been forfeited when they signed free agent Dexter Fowler so the Astros are left with two picks from the Cardinals outside of the first round of the MLB draft.
Stakeholders
     Stakeholders are individuals that have an interest or concern in this case.  These individuals may be stakeholders as they are a part of a group that has in interest in the case.  The stakeholders in this case are the front offices of both baseball organizations, baseball fans, sports reporters covering the scandal, Chris Correa, Jeff Luhnow and other former Cardinals now Astros staff, Bill DeWitt, and Jim Crane, owner of the Astros.  Both front offices are going to be affected by this scandal as it was committed by someone in the front office of the Cardinals.  Policy may change in order to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.  The Astros front office may increase security while the Cardinals may monitor their employees better.  Fans of baseball in general and fans of both teams are going to be effected because the integrity of player acquisition has now been questioned.  Who's to say this hasn't happened before?  It is important for the baseball fan to pay attention to this kind of scandal as it creates healthy skepticism in the practices their own team implements in keeping player data secure and how their own team finds out information on potential players.  Reporters have a stake in this case because it is a part of their job to break sports news to the public.  A scandal like this deserves to be shown to the public in fair, unbiased news articles so fans can formulate opinions on what happened.  It is important these reporters take an interest in this case so they can do their jobs properly and inform sports fans of what is going on.  Chris Correa has a stake in the case because he is the one who committed the crime of hacking.  He is the reason this paper can be written because he brought the Cardinals ethics into question.  Jeff Luhnow would have a stake because he is at the

Jeff Luhnow: General Manager of the Astros

center of this case.  Although according to the findings, Luhnow had nothing to do with the hacking, the databases were his creation.  He should be interested in their security and their accessibility.  He should also look into possibly changing his passwords.  Bill DeWitt has a stake as he owns the Cardinals and is responsible for how his employees conduct themselves at work.  The reputation of the Cardinals organization was tarnished by Correa so DeWitt has a stake in this case because it effects how his organization is seen.  Jim Crane is a stakeholder because his team had valuable player data stolen that resulted in missed opportunities to acquire players because the Cardinals beat them to it,  This cost his team money and success so following this case would be important for finding out how much this actually cost his team.
Individualism
     Friedman's individualism, which focuses more on business, describes individualism as profit being the only goal of a business.  This means that employees of a business are obligated to do whatever they can to help the business maximize profit within the parameters of the law.  From the individualist point of view, Correa was doing whatever he could to make the Cardinals better.  The Cardinals baseball team is technically a business that profits from the game of baseball.  Correa stole player information from the Astros in order to gain a competitive edge.  During the court hearing, federal prosecutors said, "the hacking cost the Astros about $1.7 million, taking into account how Correa used the Astros' data to draft players." (ESPN, 2016)  The Astros lost out on making 1.7 million from players the Cardinals took which means Chris Correa helped the Cardinals make 1.7 million dollars.  He helped the Cardinals profit in a big way and the players he drafted will continue to have an impact in the organization long after Correa gets out of prison.  Some individualist may say that what he did was ethical based on individualism.  The only problem is though, he acquired the data illegally.  He may have done whatever he could to help the company profit but he did so by stealing information.  What he did was most certainly helpful to the Cardinals but it was clearly illegal as he was fined 280,000 dollars and sentenced to 46 months in prison.  On top of this punishment, Major League Baseball fined the Cardinals 2 million dollars which essentially nullifies any monetary gains Correa helped them get as a result of his hacking.  From an individualist perspective, what Correa did is unethical because he may have helped the Cardinals maximize profit, he did so by illegal means.
Utilitarianism
From a utilitarian perspective, happiness and or pleasure are the only things that an individual values intrinsically.  Individuals should also spread happiness or pleasure wherever they can and do so impartially.  If happiness is to be valued, then there should be no difference between the happiness of one person and the happiness of another person from a moral perspective.  In terms of the case, Correa only tried to maximize his own happiness.  He did end up spreading happiness to the Cardinals organization because he “found” good players but that happiness was quickly negated after it came to light how he found those players.  He also impartially spread this happiness as he knew that when he did this, the Astros would be an afterthought to Correa.  He made himself happy because he was making the Cardinals happy but never took into account the happiness of the Astros.  Even the happiness he provided the Cardinals was short lived because after he got caught, the commissioner of the MLB fined the Cardinals 2 million dollars.  Correa spread happiness in a partial manner which violates a principle of utilitarianism.  He essentially weighted his happiness and the happiness of the Cardinals over everyone else’s because he worked for them and wanted to see them do well while also making himself seem like he was excelling at his job.  Based on the values of utilitarianism, what Correa did would be considered unethical.  He failed to maximize the happiness of more than just himself and when he did increase the happiness of the others, the Cardinals, he did so partially as he stole data and stealing is not known to make people or companies happy.

Kantianism

There are four basic principles of Kantianism.  The first, an individual must act rationally.  They
need to act consistently and not consider themselves exempt from the rules.  The second is an individual should be helping people make rational decisions.  The third is to respect people and their autonomy along with their needs and differences.  The fourth is that the individual should be motivated by Good Will.  They should want to do what is right just because it is the right thing to do.  A Kantian also believes that being rational is doing the right thing so there for being right is also rational.  In the case of Correa, he did not meet these requirements.  Correa considered himself exempt from the rules when he hacked the Astros database.  Perhaps he felt he would not be caught and it is clear he did not feel bound by laws against hacking as he accessed the database at least five times over a span of years.  He did not help anyone make a rational decision during this time.  The data he stole was used by the Cardinals to acquire players in order to better their team and although

the Cardinals did not know about it, Correa was still not in the right to share this information.  Therefore, he did not help the Cardinals make a rational decision as he did not specify where he got this information from.  The former Cardinals employees turned Astros employees trusted Correa with their work laptops and passwords when they left the Cardinals organization.  A password keeps your personal information safe from people you do not wish to view it.  Correa did not respect these employees or their privacy when he memorized one of the passwords and guessed the correct new one in order to gain access to the database that the Astros have.  Lastly, Correa was not motivated by Good Will when he made the decision to hack into that database.  He was motivated by the thought of a possible pay raise and prestige bump when he showed his bosses all this player information he “worked so hard to get.”  Correa did not want to do what was right and actually obtain player data the legal way by collecting it himself, he instead decided to steal it.  What he did was not right and is therefore irrational.  Based on Kantian ideals, this would make what Correa did unethical.

Virtue Theory

A virtue is a characteristic that allows for things to work properly.  In business, there are four major virtues.  These virtues are courage, honesty, temperance, and justice.  Courage is the risks an individual takes and their willingness to stand up for what is right.  Correa took a huge risk by hacking into the Astro’s database and stealing their information.  Although this does not mean he had courage.  Based on the doctrine of mean, Correa’s decision to do this was very far away from the mean of courage and was somewhere closer to one of the extremes.  It could be argued that Correa’s was rash as he really didn’t look at the big picture of what he was doing.  IT could also be considered cowardice because instead of doing what was right and difficult, he chose to steal player information and not work for it.  This ties into his lack of willingness to stand up for what is right.  What Correa did was not right and it can be clearly shown it wasn’t right as he is spending 46 months in prison.  Correa was clearly not willing to do what was right and chose rather to take an easier route in order to get player data.  This inevitably cost him his freedom.  Honesty is how truthful you are when talking to coworkers, customers, and other companies.  Correa was not honest with anyone.  Nobody really knew in the Cardinals organization where Correa was getting his player information from, they just knew he had it.  It took a federal investigation of his company in order for Correa to come clean and admit what he did.  He may have even continued on with the lie had he not done such a bad job trying to cover his tracks.  Temperance is having reasonable expectations and desires.  Correa never expected to be caught for what he was doing which can be clearly seen because of how frequently he viewed the Astro’s database.  It is unreasonable to expect that he would not get caught especially after it was announced that the database was breached and he still kept accessing it.  His desire to help the Cardinals succeed was also unreasonable because he was willing to do illegal things in order to help them.  This desire is too extreme if he is willing to break the law in order to help his company win more baseball games.  Lastly, justice is the hard work, good ideas, and fair practices of an employee.  Correa did not exhibit any kind of justice.  He cut corners by stealing player data from the Astros because he just so happened to guess a correct password.  This means he did not need to put in any hard work in order to get this information.  He did not abide by the law or the rules of baseball when he hacked into this database which means he did not show fair practices in his business.  By illegally requiring player information, he unfairly helped the Cardinals have a competitive advantage over other teams.  Based on virtue theory what Chris Correa did was unethical.

Justified Ethics Evaluation
     From my own ethical perspective, what Chris Correa did was unethical.  You don't even need the ethical theories to see that because what he did put himself in prison.  I find that Correa's lack of foresight to be especially unethical.  At some point when he was trying to guess the password for the Astro's database he had to have known what he was doing was wrong.  But he kept going until he eventually got in and continued to access the database.  He ended up tarnishing the reputation of the Cardinals by cheating and stealing which caused the Cardinals to receive penalties because of his wrongdoings.  Although the Cardinals are not totally spotless in this case.  They never thought to look into how Correa received his player data and how it specifically related to the Astros apparently never raised any red flags to them.  Seems kind of suspicious to me.  I believe that what Correa did was grossly unethical and I also believe that the lack of questioning by the Cardinals makes their handling of this situation unethical as well.

Sources 

Daniels, Tim. "St. Louis Cardinals Under FBI Investigation For Alleged Hack Of Astros System". Bleacher Report. N.p., 2015. Web. 31 Jan. 2017.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2497669-st-louis-cardinals-under-fbi-investigation-for-alleged-hack-of-astros-system 

Kepner, Tyler. "Cardinals To Suffer, But Former Executive Bears Brunt In Hacking Case". Nytimes.com. N.p., 2017. Web. 31 Jan. 2017.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/sports/mlb-st-louis-cardinals-hack-houston-astros.html 

Press, Associated. "Ex-Cards Exec Gets Prison Time For Astros Hack". ESPN.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 31 Jan. 2017.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/17101079/chris-correa-former-st-louis-cardinals-scouting-director-sentenced-jail-hacking-houston-astros 

Reiter, Ben. "Worse Than Deflategate: Why Cardinals' Hacking Is So Problematic". SI.com. N.p., 2015. Web. 31 Jan. 2017.

http://www.si.com/mlb/2015/06/16/astros-cardinals-fbi-hacking-ground-control 

Saxon, Mark. "Cardinals Get Off Light With Hacking Scandal Penalties". ESPN.com. N.p., 2017. Web. 31 Jan. 2017.

http://www.espn.com/blog/st-louis-cardinals/post/_/id/2828/cardinals-get-off-light-with-hacking-scandal-penalties 

     

         

Nakéd Juice: Unnatural Ingredients (2013)

Controversy

Popular flavors of Nakéd Juice

In 2013 PepsiCo had a lawsuit brought against them for their marketing of "Nakéd Juice". Marketed and sold as an "all-natural" juice drink the lawsuit brought against PepsiCo took issue with health phrases that did not accurately portray the product. The lawsuit states that the drink contains Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) despite PepsiCo's denial of such claims. Additionally PepsiCo's use of the phrase "all-natural" is seen as misleading since some of the Naked Juice products use some synthetic vitamin boosters and a synthetic fiber additive. PepsiCo decided to settle the lawsuit with a $9 million settlement fund that allows consumers to get up to $75 with proof of purchase from consuming the Naked Juice products between September 2007 and August 2013. The settlement fund looks to pay reparations to the consumers of the product within the given time frame. The stakeholders in this lawsuit are all the affected consumers who purchased the Naked Juice products up until August 2013 and PepsiCo itself. This post will look at PepsiCo's use of phrasing in marketing and selling Naked Juice as well as the message the settlement sends to consumers using four ethical theories: Individualist Theory, Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Virtue Theory.
Individualism
In Individualist Theory a business's primary goal is to make profits for its stockholders and employees so long as the business respects laws and human rights in the process. PepsiCo's actions in marketing Naked Juice as "all natural" and "non-GMO" allowed for consumers to trust the all natural label in making a healthy drink choice. Without a doubt this allowed profits for Naked Juice to gain a foothold in the market thanks to the healthy, all natural marketing. However, this marketing is deceptive at best for the consumer since some genetically altered ingredients are used in the drink. Genetically altered soy, vitamins, and fiber do not fit the image of an "all natural" product. While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not have a formal definition for what makes a product "natural," they do have guidelines that states as long as a product does not have added color, artificial flavor, or synthetic substances the product could be labelled as "all natural." With the use of some synthetic ingredients PepsiCo clearly mislabeled their product and did not respect the FDA's guidelines of natural.

Utilitarianism

PepsiCo. logo, owner of Naked Juice

For Utilitarianism the most valuable emotion is happiness. Utilitarianism states that any action that tries to make everyone happy is ethical. PepsiCo may have tried to maximize the happiness of their consumers by offering an "all natural" product and thus tried to maximize their profits at the same time. That may seem good on the surface but the lawsuit highlights the unhappiness of the consumers in being misled about some of the ingredients in their juice product. The settlement tries to make up for this mislabeling by allowing the consumers to be reimbursed but that does not excuse PepsiCo's actions according to this theory. They intentionally labeled the Naked Juice product to make money but overlooked the part of the market that holds all natural products to a high standard in making sure that they do, in fact, contain all natural ingredients.

Kantianism
Kantianism states that businesses should always work within the rules, never consider themselves exempt from those rules, and help consumers make well informed choices for the good of everyone. This intrinsic value system to allow people to make rational, autonomous decisions is the cornerstone for this theory. PepsiCo had deliberately labeled their Naked Juice products as all natural to persuade consumers to choose that drink over other competing juice products. The all natural label worked to bring in consumers that were worried about making healthy drink choices but the questionable ingredients and their discrete inclusion in the Naked Juice products works to misinform the consumer. Under Kantianism PepsiCo makes an unethical choice in choosing the all natural label because of their use of some synthetic ingredients. The settlement shows that PepsiCo thought that they would be able to skirt by with the loose definition of "all natural", but when eventually called out for it they would rather pay up than go through a lengthy judicial process.

Virtue Theory

Donald M. Kendall, one of three founders of PepsiCo.

Virtue Theory uses four cornerstone characteristics: courage, honesty, self-control, and fairness. Courage marks a company's willingness to take chances and stand up for what is right. Honesty marks a company's truthfulness with their business actions. Self-control refers to a company's ability to create reasonable expectations and live up to those expectations. Fairness refers to a company's hard work and fair practice. PepsiCo definitely took a chance in labeling Naked Juice as "all natural" but when brought up to the lawsuit, they decided to drop the "all natural" label in favor for a "non-GMO" label. Yet PepsiCo was considerably truthful in their explanation for dropping the "all natural" label: "In some products, we also include an added boost of vitamins. Naked juice and smoothies will continue to be labeled 'non-GMO,' and until there is more detailed regulatory guidance around the word 'natural' -- we've chosen not to use 'All Natural' on our packaging." This is a fair explanation behind the use of the label and the lack of FDA definition for what a natural product is. As far as self-control goes PepsiCo failed to live up to the "all natural" expectations when some synthetic ingredients were found in their Naked Juice products. As far as Virtue Theory goes PepsiCo did good in how they handled the situation once synthetic ingredients were found but their use of the "all natural" label from the beginning was dubious.

Conclusion Overall PepsiCo acted fair in their response but rather unethically in trying to use the all natural label when such a flimsy guideline was in place. By using this label they tried to create profits using an expectation of natural ingredients despite the existence of synthetic additives in their Naked Juice products. While not outright unethical it is rather dubious for PepsiCo to try to pass it off as all natural but in the end "non-GMO" may be the better label to accurately represent the drinks.

References

Kim, Susanna. "Naked Juice Class Action Settlement Offers Up to $75 Per Consumer."ABC News. ABC News Network, 27 Aug. 2013. Web. 13 Mar. 2014.


Long, Josh. "Naked Juice to Verify Non-GMOs under "All Natural" Settlement." Food Product Design. FoodProductDesign.com, 23 Aug. 2013. Web. 13 Mar. 2014.


Sarich, Christina. "PepsiCo's Naked Juices Have to Drop 'All Natural' Label After $9 Million Class Action Lawsuit" Nation of Change. NationofChange.org, 23 July 2013. Web. 13 Mar. 2014.


Tepper, Rachel. "Naked Juice Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Over Health Claims Means $9 Million For Consumers." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 28 Aug. 2013. Web. 13 Mar. 2014
.

GlaxoSmithKline Bribery in China (2013)

GlaxoSmithKline Bribery in China (2013)

By Chris Murray

     GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) is a British pharmaceutical company that distributes worldwide.  Recently in 2013 the company became the target of accusations that head managers in China were bribing government officials and doctors in order to prescribe higher costing treatments to patients.  GSK is suspected to have offered approximately $500 million in travel packages, entertainment, favors, and cash over six years to these doctors and officials.  Due to the recent healthcare boom in China since GSK started doing business there, the Chinese government has been cracking down on corruption at all levels.  Several employees in GSK's Chinese division have been questioned about the bribery charges including Liang Hong, one of the top executives for GSK's Chinese division, who made a television confession on the bribery charges while Steve Nechelput, the division's CFO, and Mark Reilly, the division's country manager, have been barred from leaving the country until the investigation by the Chinese is over.  Ethically, these charges put Liang Hong, Steve Nechelput, and Mark Reilly in a tough spot.  GSK offers apologies for their employees working outside of their internal controls but seem to have done so to only distance themselves from the problem.  This post will survey Hong's, Nechelput's, and Reilly's actions ethically using individualist theory, utilitarianism, Kantianism, and virtue theory.

Liang Hong, at his televised confession

     The individualism theory states that the goal of business is to make profits for stockholders and employees.  However this is only seen as ethical so long as the company respects laws and human rights.  In bribing doctors and government officials with travel packages and other entertainment to help push their drugs on the population, the Chinese division of GSK was trying to make as much profit as they could in the booming market to compete against other pharmaceutical companies in China.   This does not respect the rights of the people to be fully informed about their treatments.  Since officials were pushing advertising for more expensive drugs and doctors were prescribing the more expensive drugs to citizens, GSK was infringing on their autonomy to make well informed choices as well as making them pay more, comparatively.  During the investigation, GSK's sales in China dropped a whopping 61% due to the bribery accusations.  Public opinion on the company dropped radically as seen by these dramatic sales cuts.

      Utilitarianism states that every action that aims to make everyone happy is ethical.  In this case, the actions by the GSK's Chinese executives to increase sales would lead them to bribe doctors and officials who would then promote GSK's drugs to the people.  That may sound all well and good; GSK gets paid more from the citizens who are happy to accept the 'better' drugs as described by their doctors who are being paid by GSK themselves.  Everyone seems happy except that the consumers are unknowingly paying more for drugs they could get cheaper by buying a different brand or from a different company/manufacturer other than GlaxoSmithKline.  When the consumers found out that they were paying more than they needed too, they moved en masse away from GSK supplied drugs and found other brands to buy.  This is evident in GSK's huge drop in sales in the third quarter of 2013.

     Kantianism states that businesses should never consider themselves exempt from the rules and work to help consumers make well informed decisions while doing so for the good of everyone, intrinsically.  Evidently Liang Hong, Steve Nechelput, and Mark Reilly sought to make monetary gains for the company in exchange for the peoples' ignorance to competing brands of drugs.  Not to mention that Liang, Steve, and Reilly thought that they would be able to be exempt against the Chinese' fight against corruption in the new healthcare boom in the country.  They also went against the basic Kantian principle that the people should be considered an end, rather than a means to an end.  They treated their consumers as a means to get richer in making them buy more expensive drugs.  With the doctors playing by their rules, the Chinese branch of GSK was able to keep consumers misinformed about their choices in treatments.  These practices were all against Kantianist ethics.

     Virtue Theory is based on four characteristics: courage, honesty, self-control, and fairness. Courage stands for a company's willingness to take chances and stand up for what is right.  Honesty stands for a company's willingness to be truthful with their business actions.  Self-control refers to a company's ability to create reasonable expectations.  Fairness refers to a company's hard work and fair practice.  If a company follows all four of these characteristics then it is therefore ethical.  Interestingly this is where GSK retains most of its ethical virtues as a whole.  Liang Hong was honest when confronted with his accusations.  GlaxoSmithKline's headquarters was courageous in extending apologies for actions of their employees in the Chinese branch.  However the Chinese branch was hardly playing fair in pushing their more expensive drugs on patients through their doctors and officials.  They also lacked self-control in succumbing to bribes to push their drugs in the market.  While there were certainly some redeemable aspects to the situation, it could have been avoided completely in the first place had Hong, Nechelput, and Reilly stuck to the four virtues from the get-go.  

     GlaxoSmithKline's Chinese division will suffer dramatic sales cuts well into the next few years most likely due to these accusation and subsequent investigation.  The public has already showed a massive boycott on their drugs during the third quarter of 2013 which will only continue until fines are paid, executives are jailed or fined, and the company on the whole can be trusted again.  Hong, Nechelput, and Reilly worked against the ethical theories discussed and put their company in a bad light.  Now GlaxoSmithKline has to deal with the backlash in the Chinese market, to try and gain the peoples' trust again despite seeming unethical now.  

References:

     Barnato, Katy. "GSK's China Sales Topple on Bribery Scandal." CNBC.com. CNBC, 23 Oct. 2013. Web. 20 Feb. 2014.

     Jack, Andrew. "Q&A: China’s Investigation into GlaxoSmithKline." Financial Times. Financial Times, 4 Dec. 2013. Web. 20 Feb. 2014.

     Shobert, Benjamin. "Three Ways To Understand GSK's China Scandal." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 04 Sept. 2013. Web. 20 Feb. 2014.

     Jack, Andrew, and Patti Waldmeir. "GSK China Probe Flags up Wider Concerns."Financial Times. Financial Times, 17 Dec. 2013. Web. 20 Feb. 2014.