Question

Getting Medicine to Bosnia: Acceptable Bribery? As chief legal officer in a well-respected company making lifesaving drugs, Gordon Smith was asked by his board of directors to look into rumors of bribery with the firm’s Bosnia contract. The contract, he discovered, had been ordinary in almost every respect: A major relief organization had contracted with his company to supply a million inexpensive kits of medicine for delivery into the war-torn regions of Bosnia. Like most such contracts with charitable organizations, it contained hardly any profit for his firm. What he found strange, however, was the payment of an extraordinarily large commission to a Romanian distributor to deliver the kits deep into Bosnia. Seeking out the executive in his own firm who had negotiated the contract, he had one question in mind: Was this a bribe? Yes said the executive, it’s a bribe that we’re paying. According to the Romanian distributor, the backs of the delivery trucks were loaded with the kits — and the glove compartments were stuffed with cash. That way, when the drivers were stopped at roadblocks set up by local militia units operating all across Bosnia, they could pay whatever was demanded and continue their journey. In the past, he noted, drivers without cash had been taken from their trucks and shot. If the kits were to be delivered, this was a cost of doing business. Gordon felt sure that none of the money had flowed back to the executive, whose only motive was to get the kits delivered. Gordon faced a dilemma. Should he draft a report to the board on this most unorthodox contract? Or should he keep silent? Analysis Everything in Gordon's background with his company told him that this contract was not the way to do business. Bribery, he knew, was simply unacceptable to the board, who felt strongly that once that barrier was breached, there would be no stopping the shakedowns in the future. But everything in his makeup as a compassionate being told him that providing medicine for the wounded was of overriding importance, and that the normal ethic of commerce didn't apply in a war zone. Case from the Institute for Global Ethics. 1. Who are the stakeholders to Gordon’s decision as to whether to continue the bribe payments or not? Please list them with a brief explanation. 2. As the case says, “What should Gordon do?” Do you continue with the bribe payments (these clearly are bribes)? If so, why; if not, why not? Please indicate which ethical perspective(s) (i.e., profit maximization, utilitarianism, universalism) support your decision.

Answer 1

1..

stake holders are:

•   Gordon – He could be terminated on the off chance that he doesn't carry out his responsibility right.

• ( Roman) Distributor . On the off chance that this is accounted for, whenever he drives without money, he will be shot.

•   Executivet – He knows about the renumeration and he partakes in it.

•   Those who need the meds in Bosnia – they won't get the meds conveyed to them without the renumeration.

2.. Gordon should report this situationto his organization. The explanation is supposing that he permits this to occur, he is in a roundabout way enabling Bosnia to carry out in brutality of dangers and criminal acts. These individuals are taking briberyand demonstrating dangers to the Roman Distributor. I accept if Gordon reports this to his organization, they will have the option to make lawful move against this. While Bosnia needs prescriptions, there are different methods for getting the medications there lawfully. I accept this circumstance shows the war-torn locale as a lot of rotten ones. Additionally, as a ChiefLegalOfficer, Gordon has the obligation to accomplish his work accurately for his organization. I accept the two moral viewpoints rule of law and universalism bolster my choice since announcing is carefully to comply with the law and to make the best choice. Furthermore, while announcing or not detailing has little to do with augmentation investor esteems in long haul, not revealing would meet the requirement of benefit boost. With respect to utilitarian, this point of view would be bound to not report the gift since like the depiction appears, Gordon feels humane about the individuals in Bosnia who need the drugs. In addition, the administrators just need to get the units safelydelivered.