It seems that you are correct in your analysis of Shkerli and Turing’s decision to increase the price by such a significant amount. From a boardroom and business perspective, the decision is absolutely the correct and ethical, especially if one believes in the principles of shareholder value (Smith, 2003). I’m sure it is a decision that many corporate leaders would also make if they the same confluence of elements; namely no alternative product, complete control of distribution, and needy market; that Shkerli was able to enjoy. In fact how different is his decision than the decision of other some other companies close domestic operations and relocate abroad simply to save money. While the impact of such decision make only affect one community, the fact of the matter is that such decisions may nevertheless ruin the lives of the local people that depended on the business for whatever reason. Having said that, from a non-business perspective, the decision is not only unethical but hateful. While many could be convinced that a price hike was necessary based on the fact that, as Shkreli said the lack of demand, but to raise the price by over 5,000 percent is unexplainable except under the circumstances that Shkerli wants to make as money off of it as possible in the quickest amount of time. In other words, Shkreli is more interested in profit over people.
Fudge or be Fired – Robert
This case seems more reasonable resolvable from a business ethics perspective based on Roscoe’s decision to quit. Once he made that decision, any ethical questions that he might have had as an employee are non-existent. Unless there was some sort of non-reveal clause in his former contract or he feels that he might work for the company again, Roscoe has no ethical binds that prohibit him from following his conscience. Indeed, from a deontological ethical theory, Roscoe would have a duty to inform on his former employer (Bartlett, 2015). The important point to remember is that Roscoe already made or took a position on the actions of his former employer, and his actions illustrate just how deeply he feels about the situation. For him to simply quit basically on the grounds that he believed his former employer was acting unethically; then he does nothing else to try to remedy or call attention to the employer “bad acts” could also be construed as an example of individual unethical behavior. As he mentioned, in quitting, the company was likely to find someone else to do what Roscoe refused to do. Consequently, Roscoe’s action simply force a delay in the inevitable while giving Roscoe an alibi of sorts to say that he had nothing to do with it if they are eventually caught.
A Violation of Privacy – Mashal
The issue in this case seems to be that Marcus is not in a decision-making position in terms of what or how the company should treat the privacy of its customers (Stegmann, 2014). If there was a stated privacy policy, than Marcus could point it and inform the Marketing Department that using the information gained from the app for marketing purposes is wrong or unethical. In the absence of such a policy, the next best ethical action would be to consult with the firm’s general counsel on his concerns. The general counsel should know that protecting customer privacy is not only good for the firm but may also be required under federal and state privacy statutes. General Counsel may have more authority than Marcus to explain why their plan is problematic. In addition, Marcus could also talk to his supervisor. The point is that the most unethical action to take is simply just giving in to the demands of the Marketing Department without first exploring the options available to you.
References
Bartlett, C. (2015, August 26). A Sinking Situation. Retrieved from Markkula Center for Applied Ethics: https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/more/engineering-ethics/engineering-ethics-cases/a-sinking-situation/
Smith, H.J. (2003, Summer). The shareholders vs. stakeholders debate. Sloan Management Review, 44.
Stegmann, J., (2014). Stock Value Creation and Corporate Social Responsibility: paper developed ad-hoc for this seminar to support a discussion on Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility.
