21st Century Fox’s Bill O’Reilly Sexual Harassment Scandal (2017)

Controversy 

Bill O'Reilly

Bill O'Reilly, a well known show host for Fox, has spent the last 20 years growing his fame and attraction through his show, The O'Reilly Factor. He made his way to being one of Fox's most successful show host, accumulating more than $446 million in revenue for the parent company 21st Century Fox from 2014-2016. He might seem like a great factor to Fox's news success, but since 2002, Bill O'Reilly has been accused of sexual and verbal harassment more than 6 times. These allegations have been from several different women, some more serious than others, yet the only action that has been taken from Fox or himself is to pay off the allegations. This has been apparent time and time again. The problem with this is that Fox did not have the guts to take any action towards Bill O'Reilly until 2017. It took them 15 years after 7 different allegations to finally fire Bill O'Reilly from Fox.

Some of these allegations included storming into a room screaming at Rachael Witlieb while other people were in there. Andrea Mackris, a former producer, who filed sexual harassment against him trying to avoid all contact. Then there was Juliet Haddy, who stated that he would have significant influence on her airtime. There are many more females which stated things that Bill O'Reilly did that portrayed his true personality. Making sexual advancements in professional settings, being disrespectful due to not getting the answer he was hoping for. The biggest one of these, the one that got him fired, was the sexual allegations of Lis Wiehl. Her allegations stated that Bill O'Reilly had engaged in a non-consensual sexual relationship with her, and had also sent her sexually explicit content including gay pornography. Like all of the other allegations, this was handled by a settlement, but this time it was much higher than before, she was paid $32 million dollars. O'Reilly was then fired from Fox News in April of 2017, only to be rehired a month after, with a salary of $25 million a year, for four years. It is unbelievable that a company allows someone with such low morals to represent them after that many allegations. They have paid many settlements for him in these allegations, yet still hired him. Fox as a company does not seem to value anything but money, and does not care that there is someone in their in environment who treats any person as he wishes with no regards to the consequences. He has been let off the hook plenty of times before, yet they bring him back on, devaluing all of the claims that spoke of his true character. 

Stakeholders 

The main stakeholders in this situation are Bill O'Reilly and the company Fox News. Bill O'Reilly is at stake to continuous allegations due to his disrespectful character. He had the ability to accumulate almost 8 allegations in the matter of 10 years. Since he was able to cover them up with settlements, no one knows what kind of other legal action could have been taken against him if the accusers did not accept the settlement. Since he is back in Fox news, who knows how many more allegations will come along. 

One of the many times that Fox settled allegations for O'Reilly

Fox is also at stake here because they had to attend to all these issues as they came up. They helped O'Reilly pay off a good amount of settlements, and allowed him to continue working for them. They view him more as an asset then a liability, and although he has made them millions, he has also cost them millions. They are at stake to even more allegations in the future by rehiring him. They are not only damaging their profits by having to handle these allegations, but they are also damaging their image by allowing the possibility for this to happen time and time again and not reprimanding O'Reilly when these first started coming up. 

Some other stakeholders would be the employees working directly under O'Reilly. Working with someone that has had the issues, could make some of the employees unsure of the amount of say they could have in their environment. Knowing that all of the allegations were towards woman, any women working with him could be at stake to be disrespected for saying the wrong thing. Since O'Reilly can feel so powerful for getting away with so many things, people could be at stake to more unfair treatment. 

Individualism

Friedman's theory of individualism states that "The only goal of business is to profit, so the only obligation that the business person has is to maximize profit for the owner or the stockholders." what this basically means is that the company only has an obligation to do what is in best interest of the shareholders, in order for them to make the most amount of profit. In the case of Fox, O'Reilly was bringing in a lot of revenue for the company. In the eyes of this theory, Fox was doing the right thing by rehiring O'Reilly since his show helped the company maximize its profits. Although it did cost Fox Money, the returns for the parent company 21st Century Fox were maximized with his show. They would not be in the wrong in this theory and in fact would be doing the correct thing, since O'Reilly was such a top host in their industry. 

Kantianism 

O'Reilly last settlement which led to him being fired for one month

The basis of the Kantian theory is motivated by 4 parts, which are, to act rationally, to help others make rational decisions, to respect people by individual needs and differences and to live by good will, doing things that are right because they are right. When looking at the actions of O'Reilly, it is clear that none of them were rational in any sense. Any of the accusations that were set forth toward O'Reilly resembled actions of his true character. Actions that showed a selfish man acting in his own self interest with no respect to those around him regardless of the differences. The repercussions of his actions lead to him paying money to the different people that he impacted. He payed some settlements, but Fox payed most, buying out one of their top host knowing that in fact it was not the right thing to do. By paying money to the people affected, they were saying to O'Reilly that the could act as he pleased and they would pay for it. This shows they are not acting out of goodwill, nor trying to act rationally. The correct decision would have been to pay the settlements needed and get O'Reilly out of Fox for good, so that he could understand that he cannot disrespect as he wished and get away with it. 

Utilitarianism 

Utilitarianism is based of the idea that one should do what maximizes ones happiness and others happiness as well. It is a combination of Egoism, which is to maximize your own happiness and altruism, which is to maximize happiness in others. The amount of cases that O'Reilly had against him displays the amount of people that he upset so bad that they needed to take action upon it. He solely did things to maximize his own happiness, not caring how it affect other people. It would completely defeat this theory because this whole scandal has ended in O'Reilly getting what he wanted, and the people he actually affected just got money. Now we are not sure if the people were actually happy with just getting a lump sum of money, because they would know that it would prohibit the possibility that this would happen again since he didn't lose his job. Fox news rehired O'Reilly with the sole intention of making their company happy and O'Reilly happy. Many of the people O'Reilly actually affected would still be upset that after all he did he could still be allowed to sit on his throne and possibly continue to do the same things. 

Virtue Theory

The Virtue Theory of a business should follow four simple traits. Those are courage, honesty, temperance, and justice. It's important to evaluate this case from each of these traits to see exactly how this case holds up in the eyes of this theory. For O'Reilly to commit all of these actions towards of these different people show that he doesn't not have any courage, but rather lacks it. He could not act mannerly knowing how high of a position he held in his company. He also could not remain honest to his people as he denied most of the allegations yet paid himself out of all of them. He had no temperance, and let himself get way out of hand with people, which is what landed him in all of these accusations in the first place. In terms of justice, neither Fox or O'Reilly himself were justful in how they dealt with these accusations. Yes, they paid them off, but is that really what they wanted, most of these people were already in higher positions which most likely paid a reasonable amount of money. To just pay all of them off, it makes it seem as if they were doing all of this for a paycheck. It does not achieve the level of justice which was necessary to prevent this from happening again. Fox as a company would much rather risk this happening again then to just let go of a show host who does not hold the minimal amount of the traits described in the virtue theory. 

References 

Farhi, P. (2017, October 24). Bill O’Reilly comes to Bill O’Reilly’s defense. And by the way, he’s mad at God. Retrieved from The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/bill-oreilly-swings-back-at-his-accusers-in-sexual-harassment-cases/2017/10/24/e8700246-b82b-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.65e431301b35

Farhi, P. (2017, October 21). Report: Bill O’Reilly settled sexual harassment claim from Fox News contributor for $32 million. Retrieved from The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/bill-oreilly-settled-sixth-sexual-harassment-claim-for-32-million/2017/10/21/ff34b24c-b68c-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.3d16ed6baddf

Steel, E. (2017, December 4). Bill O’Reilly Is Sued by Woman Who Settled Over Harassment Accusations. Retrieved from The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/business/media/bill-oreilly-lawsuit-harassment.html

Steel, E., & Schmidt, M. S. (2017, April 1). Bill O’Reilly Thrives at Fox News. Retrieved from The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/01/business/media/bill-oreilly-sexual-harassment-fox-news.html

Wemple, E. (2017, April 2). Bill O’Reilly: An awful, awful man. Retrieved from The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/04/02/bill-oreilly-an-awful-awful-man/?utm_term=.a7f00e8e1efa

Nestlé PetCare Purina Company: Lawsuit on Beneful Dry Kibble (2015)

Nestlé Purina PetCare Company Headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri

Controversy: Nestlé Purina PetCare Company (Nestlé Purina) manufactures and distributes food product for cats and dogs. It operates as a subsidiary of Nestlé S.A. , which is a food and beverage company that was founded in 1866 and is headquartered in Vevey Switzerland. The current C.E.O. of the company is Ulf Mark Schneider. It operates in more than 70 companies through Europe, Americas, Asia Oceania and sub-Saharan Africa. Its products ranges from baby food, coffee, frozen food to dog food. 

Advertisement four months after

outbreak of lawsuits.

In year 2015, Nestlé PetCare Purina Company was faced with multiple lawsuits on their dog food product, the Beneful Series Dry Kibble. The dry kibble variations named in the suit include Purina Beneful Healthy Weight, Purina Beneful Original, Purina Beneful Incredibites, and Purina Beneful Healthy Growth For Puppies, Purina Beneful Healthy Smile, Purina Beneful Healthy Fiesta, Purina Beneful Healthy Radiance, and Purina Beneful Playful Life. Within these lawsuits from states including California, Massachusetts, Missouri and more, the common allegations was that Beneful was manufactured with harmful toxins like propylene glycol and mycotoxin that caused illness and/or death. In addition to the lawsuits, more than 3000 pet owners had complained through the safety reports of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and ConsumerAffairs.com about their dogs getting sick after switching solely to Beneful. The most recent death reported was today, April 5, 2018. The dogs that were sick shared symptoms of kidney failure, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach related internal bleeding, weight loss and liver malfunction. Even though this chemical was listed as a safe substance by the FDA, there are research that have shown positive and negative effects of these chemicals. Because the effect of sickness happened after the pets solely consumed Purina, for 3000 times, as a same pattern of sickness, it is highly likely that Purina does have dangerous substances in their dog food. Moreover, on April 21, 2016, the FDA published a report after finding overdosage of cyanuric acid and melamine in six samples of Beneful Series Dry Kibble. However, the only response from Nestlé Purina PetCare Company was an arrogant short statement, saying "Vets know pets get sick for many reasons and the food they eat is often not the root cause".


Individualism: This ethical framework argues that “business actions should maximize profits or the owners of a business, but do so within the law”. Nestlé Purina was unethical because it violated two rules and regulations while attempting to maximize profits. According to the FDA report, six samples of the Beneful Series Dry Kibble had cyanuric acid and melamine ‘above the allowable level’. According to the president of TruthAboutPetFood.com, these were “the two deadliest adulterants in the history of pet food”. Also, the report also stated that the samples collected “contained ethoxyquin; 
[and it] was not indicated on the product labeling”. This violates another tule because the Food Safety and Modernization Act (FSMA) required that the full ingredient list to be labeled on food packages but Nestlé Purina did not follow this rule.

A dog consuming dry kibble of the Beneful series.

Stakeholders and Utilitarianism: The stakeholders involved in this case include the dogs from more than 3000 households that have suffered from illness after consuming Beneful. Utilitarianism states that the main purpose of a company is to “maximize happiness in the long run”. However, in this case, happiness is clearly taken away because the dogs that were originally healthy went through pain after eating Beneful. Another stakeholder of this case is the pet owners of these dogs. They had their happiness taken away when their pets, which they treasure as part of the family, suffered illness and/or passed away. These pet owners had to give up their happiness emotionally in order to grief for their pets and financially in order to provide the best medical treatment for their pets. The third stakeholder in this case was the community of pet owners who were still feeding their pets Beneful. Their happiness was taken away because they would become concern of their pet’s health when the news broke out. The fourth stakeholder will be Nestlé Purina's employees and shareholders because the sales of the company was affected, and this put the company's asset and liability at risk, which in turn affects the management of the company. In this situation, Nestlé Purina's happiness was violated because of the loss of company stability. 

A picture on their website stating their slogan: "Your Pet, Our Passion".

Kantianism: Kantianism states that people should be honest and not interfere a rationale of another rational being. Kantianism also states that people should treat another rational being as a means to their end. The company claimed on its website that it maintained “a strict code of standards for buying, storing and processing ingredients used in [their] pet foods”. Kantianism advocates for “autonomy of individuals, honesty and freedom” would say this case was ethically impermissible. Nestlé Purina declared that their dry kibble had safe ingredients when in fact it contained substances that caused tragedy on the dogs’ lives. Moreover, Nestlé Purina also exploited their customers by continuing to deny the responsibility of mistakes in products. This helped protect their reputation so that they could continue earning profit from their customers. However, Kantianism would say this is not ethical because, based on the formula of humanity, Nestlé Purina used their customers as means to their ends. 

An example of the Beneful series dry kibble:

Purina Beneful Healthy Weight

Virtue Theory: Justice, prudence, intelligence and honesty are a few of the many virtues that help business people to flourish within the society. In the perspective of Virtue Theory, Nestlé Purina was not ethically permissible. This is because they did not act in according to prudence when they responded with a commercial where employees who made Beneful Series Dry Kibble were feeding it to their dogs, demonstrating confidence in their products. Even though four months later, the Beneful series might have been safe to consume again, this did not directly address the stakeholders' loss. Rather, the company decided to continue to promote their product to gain profit. This caused a feeling of injustice within concerned customers and showed how the company did not act intelligently when a controversy arose. They also were not intelligent in fulfilling the purpose that they company set for themselves. With the slogan of "Your Pet, Our Passion”, Nestlé Purina did not do what it promised the public with its products. In addition, the dry kibble did not fulfill its purposes of nourishing the health of the pets, as stated on the label on the packet. Also, lying to their customers about the ingredients violates the honesty virtue. Therefore, Nestlé Purina failed to be ethical in the perspective of Virtue Theory.
References:

Carey, Gillam. “California dog owner alleges Purina Beneful pet food can kill.” Reuters, 25 Feb. 2015, www.reuters.com/article/usa-purina-lawsuit/california-dog-owner-alleges-purina-beneful-pet-food-can-kill-idUSL1N0VZ1LL20150225. Accessed 4 Mar. 2018.

“Company Overview of Nestle Purina PetCare Company.” Bloomberg,www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=33452.Accessed 3 Mar. 2018.

“Dog Owners Alarmed at Beneful Lawsuit as Purina Denies Claims.” NBC News. 8 Mar. 2015. www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dog-owners-alarmed-beneful-lawsuit-purina-denies-claims-n316856. Accessed 3 Mar. 2018.

Laine, Samantha. Purina lawsuit: Does one of its products cause pets to become ill? The Christian Science Monitor, 24 Feb. 2015, www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0225/Purina-lawsuit-Does-one-of-its-products-cause-pets-to-become-ill. Accessed 4 Mar. 2018.

“Lawsuit Claims Purina’s Beneful is Poisoning, Killing Dogs.” NBC News. 24 Feb. 2015,www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lawsuit-claims-purinas-beneful-poisoning-killing-dogs-n312176. Accessed 4 Mar. 2018.

“Lawsuit Claims Purina Beneful Pet Food Sickens Kills Dogs.” CBS News, 25 Feb. 2015,www.cbsnews.com/news/lawsuit-claims-purina-beneful-pet-food-sickens-kills-dogs. Accessed 4 Mar. 2018.

Lupkin, Sydney. “Lawsuit Claims Beneful Dog Food Kills Pets”, ABC News, 24 Feb.2015.

Salazar, Heather. “The Business Ethics Case Manual.” n.d.  Silva, Daniella. “Purina Backs Beneful Dog Food as Lawsuit Expands Allegations.” NBC News, 14 Jun. 2015, www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/purina-backs-beneful-lawsuit-expands-allegations-n375101. Accessed 4 Mar. 2018.

Thixton, Susan. “FDA Releases Concerning Information About Beneful.” Truth About Pet Food. http://truthaboutpetfood.com/fda-releases-concerning-information-about-beneful. Accessed 4 Mar. 2018.'

Wells Fargo: Account Fraud/Insurance Scandal (2016-2018)

Controversy:

Major bank Wells Fargo is looking at over
 3.5 million fraudulent accounts.

Wells Fargo, a well-known bank that holds accounts for millions of people world wide is currently in the hot seat for one of the biggest fraud scandals the United States has ever scene. The bank was caught opening millions of savings and checking accounts using the information of existing clients and charging each account unnecessary fees. Clients began to pick up on the scandal when they started to receive debit cards, credit cards, and lines of credit that they were unaware of ever ordering or signing up for. When the case was opened the individual branch workers were the first on the chopping block but it was later determined that corporate heads and Upper-Management were pushing for branches to meet nearly impossible quotas through cross-selling to their clients. Employees were encouraged to look at clients as customers and themselves as the salesperson pushing extra and unneeded products. In order to meet the insane quota imposed by higher up management employees were told to start ordering things like credit cards for clients without their permission and then use their own information to conceal the fraud being done. They then began transferring money from the clients real accounts and using it to open fraudulent accounts to bill. This fraud scandal reached such an extreme level that employees began enrolling the homeless in financially charging accounts. Upper management did nothing to stop employee's from these unethical means despite the inappropriate conduct happening in the workplace and the unrealistic goals being placed on branches of the bank. Towards the end of the year it was revealed by three whistle blowers from Prudential that the employees were also selling insurance such as life insurance to clients. These three whistle blowers were then fired from Prudential but had finally brought the scandal to light. Senator Elisabeth Warren then launched a full scale investigation into the recent acts of Wells Fargo.

CEO John Stumpf Preparing to address congress.

The Investigation into the fraudulent activities by Wells Fargo revealed that the bank had created over 3,500,000 fraudulent accounts and sold 565,433 credit card accounts costing clients upwards of $110 million in incurred fees and charges. This covered all damages from incurred fees to damaged credit scores. The Central Bank and Government was not so easy to please Wells Fargo was forced to remove four chairmen out of its 16 person executive board setting the company years behind its competitors. On top of this John Stumpf, CEO of Wells Fargo stepped down after giving a testimony during his senate hearing.This strongly damaged Wells Fargo's reputation as a stable bank that it had created during the 2008 Financial Crisis and will take years if not decades to come back from. 

Stakeholders: 

There are of course many stakeholders in this massive scandal starting with the clients effected both financially and emotionally. Not only did they loose their trust for banking but they had suffered severe long term money damages. Their credit scores were destroyed and many of them had mortgages unable to be paid off or now had a second mortgage. Next up are the Investors, they had put trust and money into Wells Fargo to do the right and of course ethical thing to succeed only to get wrapped up into a large scale scandal suffering large amounts money damages. Last but not least, Wells Fargo itself is a stakeholder having to pay millions in recovery, legal fees, and reconstruction of its company. They now have to work from the ground up to recover the trust of future clientele and are set years behind other major banks like Citigroup, JP Morgan and chase, and Bank of America after having to replace the CEO and four out of their sixteen chairman on the board. 

Individualism:

Friedman states in his theory that “The only goal of business is to profit" meaning the only obligations Well's Fargo had was to its shareholders and itself in maximizing profits. An individualist would look at this case and argue that it was not ethical for Wells Fargo to open up the false accounts because they did not stay within the rules of the game (the law). Their duty may not have to be to their clients but they had a duty to not break the law with their methods to increase profits. If Wells Fargo & Company did not get caught it would have been a very hefty payout to shareholders but it still would not have been ethical to commit the crimes they did. 

Kantianism:

Credit and Debit accounts were used to meet
quotas set by upper management.

Kantianism founded by Immanuel Kant boils down to four basic and straight forward principles; Act Rationally, Respect People, Be motivated by good will, and Do not take advantage of others. With that being said an supporter of Kantianism would argue that Wells Fargo is unethical on every degree. Kant also believed in the formula of humanity which states "Never treat someone as a mere means to an end" which basically translates to do not exploit those around you. Wells Fargo did exactly that using their clients to open millions of accounts to boost their own profits and personal gain. By doing this Wells Fargo showed that they view their clients as a mere means or tool used to accomplish their own personal goals. 

Utilitarianism:

Utilitarianism can ultimately be broken into two key points Egoism which focuses on maximizing the happiness of ones self and Altruism which focuses on maximizing the happiness of others. In order of utilitarianism to be fulfilled both requirements must be met so Wells Fargo and their actions would be deemed unethical in the stand point of an Utilitarian. Wells Fargo succeeded in maximizing personal happiness by increasing profits but they did it at the expense of their clients. One may be able to argue that they satisfied the happiness of their shareholders and that fulfills the factor of Altruism but since it was at the expense of the clients and even many employees it fails to meet the requirements needed.It is blatant that the company is only focusing on themselves rather than the overall happiness of everyone. 

Virtue Theory:

Virtue Theory in business comes down to four basic characteristics; Courage, Honesty, Temperance, and Justice. In a sense it contently took a lot of courage for Wells Fargo to pull the scandal off on this large of a scale but in doing so Wells Fargo failed to be honest with their clients and kept the fact that they were opening countless accounts in the clients name. They also had failed to show temperance or self control when handling the quota's and did whatever it took to get ahead. Justice can be found in the consequences Wells Fargo faced after being caught in the act from the stepping down of the CEO John Stumpf to the replacement of four of the sixteen board members. 

References:

“Wells Fargo May Have Charged 500,000 Clients for Unwanted Insurance.” Fortune, fortune.com/2017/07/28/wells-fargo-loan-default-scandal/. 

Flitter, Emily, et al. “Federal Reserve Shackles Wells Fargo After Fraud Scandal.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 Feb. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/business/wells-fargo-federal-reserve.html.

            “Wells Fargo Opened a Couple Million Fake Accounts.” Bloomberg View, Bloomberg, www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-09/wells-fargo-opened-a-couple-million-fake-accounts.

          

  Agnes, Melissa. “Wells Fargo Is Not Addressing The Right Questions Within Their Crisis Response.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 18 Oct. 2016, www.forbes.com/sites/melissaagnes/2016/09/12/wells-fargo-is-not-addressing-the-right-questions-within-their-crisis-response/2/#49d1c9cd54db.

            

Campbell, Elizabeth. “Chicago to Pull $25 Million From Wells Fargo After Scandal.” Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg, 3 Oct. 2016, www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-03/chicago-to-pull-25-million-from-wells-fargo-because-of-scandal.

  

JP Morgan and Chase; Foreign Bribery Case (2013-2016)

Controversy

J.P. Morgan and Chase CEO: Jaime Dimon

In 1977, the United States government signed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; this act forbids companies to make payments to foreign government officials in return for business.  There was suspicion of JP Morgan and Chase breaking this act; after three years, federal authorities determined that JP Morgan and Chase were in violation of this act. Although, hiring people related to government officials, it is illegal to do it if you are expecting money and/or business in return.  It was reported that JP Morgan and Chase hired unqualified children of Chinese leaders to gain business with them. Over seven years, they had hired about 100 interns and full time employees who were children of the elite and because of this they had made over 100 million dollars.

The government found emails that helped prove this wrong and how there was a very strong link with hiring these people for business.  According to the Wall Street Journal the government had found multiple emails proving this. There was one email where a man stated to a worker in New York on how to handle the son and how to leverage the father in China.  There was also another instance where one of the children were very immature. He was the son of a Chinese minister and he did not perform well at his interview, messed up getting his work visa, and accidently sent an inappropriate email to a person who worked in human resources.  There was also another email about this person sent by a senior banker calling him “immature, irresponsible, and unreliable”. It was also reported that some of the senior executives that worked in their offices in Asia had left as soon as the investigation started; since they did this people were suspecting that they were guilty, when the investigation started no one knew if they would be facing criminal charges or civil charges, and by leaving they thought they would get out of facing charges.

Stakeholders

Many stakeholders were negatively affected by this decision to hire these unqualified princelings.  First the already employed, qualified employers were affected because they now had more work put on them, these children did not know what they were supposed to do so the employees had to pick up their slack and do it themselves or take time out of their day to . teach them how to do it.  The customers were affected because they had people handling their money that did not kno

J.P. Morgan and Chase bank in China

w how to properly do their job.

Once J.P. got caught doing this even more people were negatively affected.  Now the Chinese government was affected, their children lost their jobs, and the government themselves lost the deal with J.P., the company now owed a settlement of $264 million dollars.  The company made about $100 million from hiring the princelings, but now they were going to lose an additional $164 million dollars and made nothing from breaking the law.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianist’s would find this to be unethical.  They believe that the most important thing is happiness.  The more people that are happy, the better. In this case, the only people this benefited was the Chinese government, the unqualified workers, the people that got the money from doing this.  More people were affected poorly, workers now had to work with people that did not know what they were doing and the would not get paid more from it even though the company made a lot from it, customers money could have been handled poorly, and qualified people were missing out on the job opportunity.

Kantism

Kant would also be against this action. He believed in rationality and good will. He believed you should not use people as mere means. He would be against this because J.P. Morgan and Chase did not act rationally; this decision hurt a lot of people and it went against the law. It was not for good will, they did it to try and make a bigger profit. All the workers and the children were treated unfairly and were just used as pawns in order to gain business with the Chinese government.

Chinese Government

Individualism

Individualists believe that the only obligation a business has is to make a profit for its owners and/or stakeholders, but it must stay within the law. In this case, they did make a profit, but that profit was lost because they broke a law. They ended up making around $100 million dollars, but have to a pay a settlement of $264 million dollars. Therefore, they did not stay within the law and ended up losing money, so individualists would find this to be unethical.

Virtue Theory

Virtue theory focuses on how the situation itself is unethical.  It focuses on honest and justice. In this case, the company was unhonest, what they did was technically against the law; they hired people and were able to make money off it, going against the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.  They were dishonest in the fact that they tried to argue that these people were qualified to work there when most of them did not meet the requirements and knowledge needed.

Russia: Olympic Curling Doping Scandal (2018)

Controversy

Krushelnitckii participating in mixed doubles curling event before being 

stripped of the bronze medal for doping

During the 2018 Olympics in Pyeongchang, South Korea, the Russian Olympic team has been in the spotlight for alleged doping. Alexander Krushelnitckii, a member of the Olympic Athletes from Russia’s (OAR) curling team was stripped of a bronze medal that he won in the mixed doubles curling event with his wife, Anastasia Bryzgalova after failing a drug test because of performance enhancing drugs. However, because Krushelnitckii is a Russian athlete, it complicated things. Russia had previously run a state sponsored doping ring during the Sochi Olympics, the International Olympic Committee had considered removing Russia from the Olympics in 2018. During the 2018 Olympics in Pyeongchang, South Korea, the country of Russia is technically not taking part.

The Russian team has been forced to go through rigorous vetting and wear uniforms without their countries flag and are unable to play their national anthem. The Russian team is called Olympic Athletes from Russia, or OAR, that competes under the Olympic flag rather than the Russian flag. If

Russian Athletes playing for Olympic Athletes from Russia team because the country 

of Russia was banned from the 2018 Olympic in Pyeongchang

the OAR curling team is stripped of its medal, Norway will be in line for the bronze. Krushelnitckii, admitted to breaking the anti-doping rules during the 2018 Olympics in Pyeongchang, South Korea, for taking meldonium, a performance enhancing drug, and was disqualified. Meldonium has been banned in the Olympics since 2016 and is the same drug that tennis player Maria Sharapova was caught using.

Stakeholders

There are many stake holders in this case. The most important is Krushelnitckii’s teammates. His teammates trust him to play by the rules in all events. Because he did not follow the rules by taking performance enhancing drugs, he put his team is at risk of losing their bronze medal in the mixed doubles curling event. After being accused of taking performance enhancing drugs members of the Russian team were unable to concentrate on their game because of the possibility of losing their medals for the misconduct of one athlete. The next stakeholder involved in this case is the opposing teams, especially Norway who is in line for the bronze behind Russia. The opposing teams worked hard to play against each other only to lose to someone who broke the rules. 

Individualism

Meldonium: Performance enhancing drug used by Krushelnitckii 

during the 2018 Olympics

Friedman’s theory of individualism states, “The only goal of business is to profit, so the obligation that the business person has is to maximize profit for the shareholders within the constraints of the law” An Individualist would examine this case and consider it to be unethical. An Individualist would see this case as unethical because Russia was had won a medal with the aid of performance enhancing drugs. By taking meldonium, a performance enhancing drug that is known to increase one’s stamina, that was previously banned from the Olympics, Alexander Krushelnitckii, a Russian curler was able to become a better competitor and win a bronze medal by breaking the rules of the game, making his actions unethical.  

Kantianism

Immanuel Kant was the creator of Kantian business ethics. Kantianism is based on four basic principles. The four basic principles of Kantianism are to act rationally, allow and help people, to make rational decisions, respect people, their autonomy, and their individual needs and differences, and be motivated by good will. A Kantian who reviews this case would consider it to be unethical. Alexander Krushelnitckii, a curler from the Russian Olympic team took performance enhancing drugs and tried to compete in the Olympics without announcing his use of performance enhancing drugs. By taking performance enhancing drugs which is against Olympic rules, Krushelnitckii showed a lack of respect for the athletes competing against him. He also showed a lack of respect for his teammates who were not taking performance enhancing drugs and were stripped of their medal because they played alongside him. Furthermore, Krushelnitckii was not acting with goodwill. Acting with good will is defined as seeking to do what is right because it is right. Breaking the rules by taking performance enhancing drugs is a violating of good will.

Utilitarianism

The theory of Utilitarian business ethics is based on two factors that are focused on maximizing happiness in yourself and others, these two factors are egoism and Altruism. Egoism is defined as maximizing your own happiness, altruism is based on maximizing happiness in others. A Utilitarian reviewing this case would view it as unethical. A utilitarian would view this case as unethical because Alexander Krushelnitckii did not satisfy the requirements of egoism and altruism. By taking performance enhancing drugs Krushelnitckii maximized his own happiness by obtaining a bronze medal but did not maximize the happiness of others. For example, after news about Krushelnitckii taking performance enhancing drugs was leaked to the public, both fans of other teams, members of competing teams, and members of his own team were disappointed. The Russian athlete was solely focusing on himself rather than his team, his fans, and members of competing teams.

Virtue Theory

Virtue theory focuses on the act performed and the reasons why it is unethical. Virtue theory focuses on four characteristics to determine whether or not an act is ethical, these four characteristics include courage, honesty, temperance, and justice. Throughout this case the Russian curler, Alexander Krushelnitckii lacked each of the four characteristics. He lacked the courage to follow the rules and compete fairly against other teams. Krushelnitckii acted immoral by taking performance enhancing drugs and being being unjust, trying to hide the presence of meldonium in his system. Therefore, the actions presented in this case would be considered unethical when analyzing from the standpoint of a virtue theorist.

References

Cacciola, Scott. The New York Times. Olympic Curling Rocked by Russian Doping Case. 19 Feb. 2018. <www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/sports/olympics/olympic-curling-doping-reaction.html.>

DesJardins, Joseph R. McGraw-Hill/Irwin. An Introduction to Business Ethics. 2014

Dwyer, Colin. NPR. Russian Culer Stripped of Olympic Bronze After Being Found Guilty of Doping. 22 Feb. 2018. <www.npr.org/sections/thetorch/2018/02/22/587849425/russian-curler-stripped-of-olympic-bronze-after-hes-found-guilty-of-doping.>

Ingle, Sean. The Guardian. Russia Banned from Winter Olympics over State-Sponsored Doping. 5 Dec. 2017. <www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/dec/05/russian-olympic-committee-banned-winter-games-doping.>

Mather, Victor. The New York Times. Why is Russia at the Olympics? 1 Feb. 2018.                                                                   < https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/01/sports/olympics/russia-olympics-doping.html>

Ortiz, Erik. NBC News. IOC Votes to Uphold Russia Olympics Ban, Athletes Wont March Under Flag. 22 Feb. 2018. <www.nbcnews.com/storyline/winter-olympics-2018/ioc-   votes-uphold-russia-olympics-ban-athletes-won-t-march-n850891.>

Ortiz Erik. NBC News. Russian Curler Who Won Olympic Medal Suspected of Doping Puts Sport Under Scrutiny. 19 Feb. 2018. <www.nbcnews.com/storyline/winter-olympics-2018/russian-curler-who-won-olympic-medal-suspected-doping-puts-sport-n849336.>

Ruiz, Rebecca R, and Tariq, Paja. The New York Times. Russia Banned From Winter Olympics by I.O.C. 5 Dec. 2017.          < www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/sports/olympics/ioc-russia-  winter-olympics.html.>

Salazar, Heather. The Business Ethics Case Manual. n.d.

Staff, Mayo Clinic. Mayo Clinic. Performance Enhancing Drugs: Know the Risks. 15 Oct. 2015.                                             < https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/fitness/in-depth/performance-enhancing-    drugs/art-20046134>

Time. Russia’s OAR Olympic Curling Team Faces Doping Scandal   <http://time.com/5166226/alexander-krushelnytsky-russia-doping-olympics-curling/>

Tracy, Ben. CBS News. Doping Allegation Against Curler Puts Spotlight in Russian Olympians. 19 Feb. 2018. <www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-olympic-curler-alexander-krushelnitsky-accused-of-doping/.>