This document analyzes the ethical dilemma faced by Raj, an employee for a small company. Raj must choose a supplier for a commodity order. One supplier offers Raj tickets to a cricket match to influence his decision. Accepting the tickets could compromise Raj's reputation for fairness and cost the company money if a better supplier is passed over. However, it would make Raj's son happy. The document examines this dilemma from Kantian and utilitarian ethical perspectives to determine the right course of action.

1. Ethical Analysis-
Company Vs
Family
By: Ravi Setia
Ravi Setia
BE-MBA
400807033
Word count: 1100+
8/19/2012

2. Business Relationships and Ethics By: Ravi Setia
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2
Case Outline ............................................................................................................................................ 2
Actors Involved ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Actors directly involved ...................................................................................................................... 2
Actors indirectly involved ................................................................................................................... 2
Key ethical and moral issues ................................................................................................................... 3
Viewpoints .............................................................................................................................................. 3
1. Raj ................................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Bribing Supplier ............................................................................................................................... 3
3. Raju ................................................................................................................................................. 4
4. Raj’s Company ................................................................................................................................. 4
5. Other Suppliers ............................................................................................................................... 4
Ethical Analysis........................................................................................................................................ 4
Kantian Ethical Theory ............................................................................................................................ 4
Decision Rule....................................................................................................................................... 4
Self-destructive Counterpoint............................................................................................................. 4
Categorical imperative: Usage consideration ..................................................................................... 4
Utilitarian Theory .................................................................................................................................... 4
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 5
References .............................................................................................................................................. 5
pg. 1

3. Business Relationships and Ethics By: Ravi Setia
Introduction
Case Outline
The case involves an employee, Raj, of a small company. Raj works in the
Purchase Department of the company. With the passage of time, Raju earned
the reputation of being a fair, honest and responsible employee. Raj’s job is to
finalise one supplier out of three for a certain commodity. Raj has almost
finalised one supplier.
Raj has a son, Raju, who is a big fan of cricket and wants o watch a live cricket
match in VVIP box but neither Raj nor Raju were able to procure tickets for the
match. One of the suppliers offered Raj the tickets. The ethical dilemma lies
around Raj whether he should accept the tickets and select that supplier for
order or decline the offer for tickets.
Actors Involved
Actors directly involved
1. Raj
Raj, having the reputation of being honest, fair and responsible employee is in ethical
dilemma. Raj may compromise on his reputation and make a biased choice for
selection of supplier or he can continue with his reputation and does not accept the
tickets to cricket match.
2. Supplier offering the tickets
The supplier seems to be a clever man who wants to get the order by hook or crook
and is not shy of bribery.
3. Raju
Raj’s son, Raju, is die-hard cricket fan who wants to watch live cricket match in
VVIP box at any cost. Raju will be able to fulfil his wish only when Raj takes the
tickets from one of the supplier and compromises on his reputation.
Actors indirectly involved
1. Raj’s Company
The company where raj works will suffer since it won’t receive the best available
product at best price which it could only if Raj wouldn’t compromise on his stand.
2. Other Suppliers
They will lose this business opportunity despite of being the most suitable for the
order if Raj accepts the tickets.
pg. 2

4. Business Relationships and Ethics By: Ravi Setia
Key ethical and moral issues
Building a reputation is a task which takes many years. One mistake may risk everything Raj
has hard-earned over the years. Raj’s company will also bear losses as well as other suppliers.
The company won’t get the best product at best price and suppliers won’t get the order
despite being ahead of the competition in terms of price and quality. On the other hand, Raj
will bring great happiness to his only son, Raj. The happiness and joy Raju will get is not
quantifiable and can only be felt. Raj, having only one child feels inclined toward
compromising his values for his son’s happiness.
The company where raj works may suffer huge losses if the product they receive is of poor
quality. The company may further lose their business and reputation of supplying good
quality products. Raj alongside may lose everything if his action is discovered.
The supplier on the other hand believes in getting the order by hook or crook. He may go to
any extent to get the order which would not have been possible by fair means. The other
suppliers will lose faith in the company and the industry as a whole if such practices start and
they are unable to get order by fair means on merit. They would also then think of using
unfair means to get the order and this ultimately would lead to starting of a trend from where
there is no turning back.
Viewpoints
1. Raj
“Should I compromise on my moral values and company’s business to get something I
want?”
“Is my son’s happiness more important than my career?”
“But Raju will be very happy to see the match from the pavilion.”
“Other suppliers may lose a lot of business and may not do business with us again”
“Is it worth risking everything I have earned on such a thing?”
2. Bribing Supplier
“I need to get the order at any cost if I have to survive in the competition”
“It won’t affect Raj directly. It’s not his company after all. He is just an employee.”
“Moreover I am paying (tickets) him well in return”
pg. 3

5. Business Relationships and Ethics By: Ravi Setia
3. Raju
“Going to a live cricket match can be so very exciting and I wish I can go to one and sit with
the cricketers”
4. Raj’s Company
Each employee should be honest, fair and responsible while doing his job and work towards
achieving what is in the best interests of the company. An employee should never put his
personal goals above company’s objectives.
5. Other Suppliers
“Mr. Raj is a very honest and responsible man. He will give the order to the best supplier. We
should not use any unfair means to secure the order.”
Ethical Analysis
Kantian Ethical Theory
Kantian ethics are deontological, revolving entirely around duty rather than emotions or end
goals. It is according to this that the moral worth of any action is judged. Kant's ethics are
founded on his view of rationality as the ultimate good and his belief that all people are
fundamentally rational beings.[1].
Decision Rule
“There is no defined way to take an action. Action varies with the surrounding environment.”
Self-destructive Counterpoint
If the above stated rule is used everywhere, there would b a wide variation in decisions and
many times would not be the rationally right choice as environment would vary for every
individual.
Categorical imperative: Usage consideration
Acceptance of the tickets would be considered a betray to the company and to the job
responsibility assigned to Raj. He would be using his power to make profits which is not his.
The bribing supplier will use Raj’s vulnerability to win the order which he wouldn’t have got
otherwise.
Utilitarian Theory
According to utilitarianism the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting
outcome although there is debate over how much consideration should be given to actual
consequences, foreseen consequences and intended consequences.[2]
pg. 4

6. Business Relationships and Ethics By: Ravi Setia
Case 1: Raj accepts the tickets without being caught
Happy Unhappy
Raj Other Suppliers
Raju
Bribing Supplier
Raj’s Company
Case 2: Raj doesn’t accept the tickets
Happy Unhappy
Raj Raj
Other Suppliers Bribing Supplier
Raj’s Company Raju
Case 3: Raj gets caught after accepting the tickets
Happy Unhappy
Other Suppliers Raj
Raj’s Company Raju
Bribing Supplier
Conclusion
From the Kantianism point of view, Raj’s decision to accept the tickets and compromise on
his values is not right.
Utilitarian view is situation dependent. Thus Raj should consider all factors before making
the final decision.
References
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantianism
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
pg. 5