Problem StatementAs chief legal officer of his company, Alistair is responsible for submitting advisory reports to the company’s board, mostly on request. When requested to conduct a price-fixing problem in the company’s European offices, Alistair finds out that the major problem in the company’s European offices is not price fixing. However, as he almost concludes his report on this issue, he finds out that there is an issue with the Bosnia contract. The company signed a contract with a major relief organization in Bosnia to supply over a million inexpensive kits of medicine for delivery into the war torn Bosnia (Honor the Cost of Philanthropy, (Jan, 2011). After finding out that there are some problems with this contract, which does not profit the company that much, he is faced with the dilemma of whether to write another report to the company’s board about his new findings or remain silent on the issue.InputAccording to the statements in the beginning, the board relies on Alistair’s findings and recommendations to discuss the way forward in their discussions. Additionally, Alistair requires the permission of the company’s board to conduct an investigation. However, considering the fact he continues to investigate the Bosnian issue without requesting for the board’s permission infers that he is at liberty to conduct any investigations about the company as he considers fit. Additionally, the dilemma of whether or not to provide a report on his new findings further prove that Alistair can make recommendations to the board on issues that he investigates and finds out without the board’s authorization.The company’s board had realized that there were some rumors in the European offices, but these unsubstantiated rumors required some proof before deciding to work on them. After assigning Alistair the responsibility to work on this investigation, and he realizes that there is another problem, the Bosnia contract, he decides to investigate on the latter too. The ethical board would need his recommendations in order to act on this issue too. Alistair’s findings include the following. There is no issue of price-fixing, bribery, kick-backs, or other unethical activities as alleged in the rumors spread to the company’s board. Secondly, he finds out that, one of the executives in his own firm negotiated a business deal with a major relief organization to supply a million inexpensive kits of medicine for delivery into Bosnia’s war torn regions (Honor the Cost of Philanthropy, 2011). Alistair also finds out that the contract does not contain substantial profits for his company, just as is always the case with most charitable institutions.The first dilemma in this case is the fact that, when Alistair finds out from this company executive, who negotiated the contract, the latter replies that, “Yes and No” to the question of whether this was a bribery. There are strange and extraordinarily large commission paid to the Romanian distributor to deliver the kits into the war torn regions, which is included in the contract. In his explanation, the company executive explains to Alistair that, the Romanian distributor needs these large amounts of money to bribe the local militia, who set up roadblocks demanding money from the drivers. He even explains to him that, the drivers who have declined to pay these fines to the militia groups have been killed and the trucks taken away. Even though Alistair finds out that, by the time of his investigations, the kits have already been delivered; his third dilemma is whether or not to draft a report to the company’s board about this issue.Solution
There are two possible solutions to this dilemma. In the first instance, Alistair can choose to write the report of his findings on the Bosnia case. On the other hand, he can remain silent on the issue and assume that he had not been requested to investigate this issue and that he had concluded his findings on the same. However, he has to choose one option. His choice depends on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats associated with each option. Below are the SWOT analyses of the two possible solutions to this dilemma1. If Alistair decides to write a report to the company’s board about his findings on the Bosnia contractStrengthsa). This will prove to the company’s board that he is a dedicated and productive individual thereby reflecting positively in his portfolio as a company employeeb). He shall have provided the actual findings to the board for further debate and decisionc). The rumors in the European offices shall have been substantiatedWeaknessesa). He had not been requested to investigate this issue, which implies that his report would be irrelevantb). The kits had already been delivered by the time of finding out the issue, which makes the report uselessc). The company executive who negotiated the contract has proof for his actions, which includes protection from the local militia groupsOpportunitiesa). The company’s board could use the report to harmonize issues in the European offices since most people seem to complain about the “Bosnia contract”b). Alistair might get commended for the good job, which boosts his morale as an employeec). The board would find a solution to dealing with contractual arrangements in the futureThreatsa). This might cause embarrassment to the relief organization, which is aware of the huge commissions to the distributorb). Might cause great harm to the executive who negotiated the contract
c). the local militia might put the company on notice in case the board implements measures, which affect their operationsd). The company might not get more contracts from the relief organizatione). The distribution company might not be willing to work with the company anymore even though they might be needed for distributions and delivery
2. The second possible solution in this case is remaining silent on the findings, especially after realizing that no money flowed back to the company executive, whose only motive in the contract was to ensure that the kits were deliveredStrengthsa). He shall have saved the company’s executive who negotiated the contract from the implications of the board’s decision on this issueb). He shall have saved the reputation of the relief organizationc). He shall have maintained the security of the company, especially in the light of the local militia groupsWeaknessesa). This would imply incompetence in his partb). In case the board finds out that he already investigated the issues, he might bring negative impact on his careerc). The seemingly unresolved conflict in the European offices about the “Bosnia contract” would persistd). The report on the price fixing issue might include the “Bosnia contract” as quoted by the other company officials in response to the investigationsOpportunitiesa). The issue is still unknown to the company’s boardb). The other company officials in the European offices do not seem to be in a hurry to blow the whistle because they have been silent until the kits have been deliveredc). The company might get more contracts from the relief organizationThreatsa). The board might lose trust on Alistair if they find outChoiceMaking the right choice in this case involves considering the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of each option. Therefore, considering the above analysis, Alistair should write a report of his findings to the company’s board about the Bosnia contract. He should also include his recommendations in this report detailing the strengths of the other option so that the board can weigh its options in making conclusions on the caseOperationDiscuss with the company executiveAlistair should discuss with the company executive who negotiated the contract and inform him on the need for the company’s board to be informed about the issue. He should make him understand that the company’s board has the right to be informed about all the operations of the company. He should also explain to him that, other European officials of the company are complaining about the Bosnia contract. Therefore, the issue needs to be resolved to ensure that the rumors from the European offices are tamed. The company executive should be made to understand that it is part of Alistair’s responsibilities to notify the company’s board of all his findings as long as they are relevant, and this is a relevant finding that the board should be notified.Write to the board notifying them about his new findingsAfter informing the company’s executive about his intentions, Alistair should write to the company’s board in his findings on the first investigations that there is another issue, which needs investigation. He should write a letter accompanying the report that he has substantiated the claims in the latter issue and would wish to present another report on his findings. This step would ensure that the company’s board is prepared for another report, apart from the initial report it ordered. This action will eliminate ambiguity barriers.Draft a reportAlistair should then draft a comprehensive report after conducting thorough investigations on all the parties involved in the contract. Even though he might not interview the militia groups for security purposes, he can find pertinent information from the distributor and other distributors in the region. The report should be unbiased and accurate with facts about the contract. He can either choose to include his recommendations on the issue or leave that to the board’s decisions. However, since he conducted the ground investigations about the issue, he should provide his recommendations to the boardFind out any other relevant informationIt is important to ensure that the report is clear and concise before submitting it to the company's board. The all inclusive report should include all the opinions, reactions, and facts from different European offices, stakeholders, and any other individuals that Alistair consider relevant to his investigationsFinalize and present the reportThis is the final stage of the operation. Alistair should finalize the report and ensure that the information required is included in this report. He should also ensure that he can defend his report before the board and stakeholders.
References:
DeBono E. (1985). Six thinking hats. New York; Little, Brown and Company.
Honor the Cost of Philanthropy, (Jan 28, 2011). Global Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.globalethics.org/dilemas/Honor-The-Cost-of-Philanthropy/20/
