In business periodicals, news magazines, and newspapers, identify a significant decision made by a major company that has some ethical implications associated with it. In the decision you identified, did the manager or managers appear to use good decision-making skills? Did they follow the decision-making step? Was the decision made by a group or an individual? What are the ethical implications of this decision, and who is likely to be impacted?
This is a great project and a very important one at that. Recently, there has been a lot of ink on the Clinton Foundation. Peter Schweizer's forthcoming book, Clinton Cash, states that the Clinton foundation did not report money coming in from foreign governments. What makes this situation even worse is that Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State made favorable decisions when it came to those nation. So, what we have here is a clear conflict of interest.
Maura Polly, the CEO of the foundation, admits to making mistakes. Here is what an article on Bloomberg states:
"So yes, we made mistakes, as many organizations of our size do, but we are acting quickly to remedy them, and have taken steps to ensure they don't happen in the future. We are committed to operating the Foundation responsibly and effectively to continue the life-changing work that this philanthropy is doing every day."
From this information we can say that those entrusted with finances did NOT make good decisions. Moreover, if money was coming from foreign nations, then there should have been a clear account of it. Whether this mistake came from the top down, we do not know. However, there are serious ethical implications.
First, we are not only dealing with a non-profit, but we are also dealing with U.S. politics and foreign affairs. So, the stakes are extremely high. The Clinton foundation should be above reproach. Sadly, they are not. Peter Schweizer likens this to insider trading.
Second, there will be implications for Hilary's campaign for office. Many will not trust her integrity. This book may singlehandedly end her career.
Arguably one of the biggest scandals to hit the new circuit last year was the indictment of Credit Suisse, one of the largest banks in the world. They were accused of letting wealthy Americans hide their assets from the IRS, in order to evade taxes.
Under scrutiny, Credit Suisse admitted to doing this. Here is a snippet from an article from the Guardian:
Holder said the bank helped account holders deceive the IRS by concealing assets and income in illegal, undeclared bank accounts. “These secret offshore accounts were held in the names of sham entities and foundations. This conspiracy spanned decades. In the case of at least one wholly owned subsidiary, the practice of using sham entities to conceal funds began more than a century ago,” said Holder. He said hundreds of Credit Suisse employees, including at the manager level, “conspired to help tax cheats dodge US taxes”.
Based on this information, we can say that people from all levels of the bank were implicated. They certainly did not use good decision-making skills. They tried to evade and lie. And they did so for decades. They got away with it for quite sometime, but eventually they were caught. Credit Suisse had to pay 2.5 billion dollars.
The outcome of this trial is that the chairman of the board and and the CEO were made to resign - Brady Dougan and Urs Rohner.
Another implication of this crime is that Credit Suisse, a bank with a venerable past, is now questioned in terms of its integrity.
Finally, the general populace, who has already lost a lot of respect for banks have more fodder. And the 99% now have definitive proof that the rich (the 1%) use and have used loopholes and illegal means to keep their wealth.