I believe this Is the most ethical and logical decision that would bring the best results to the company as well as protect the Investors; since many circumstantial situations suggest it would be impossible to bring changes to the company otherwise. When the chance of getting caught for an unethical behavior Is low, the perception of people’s wrongdoing Is often minimized. It also appears that the DC executives also tended to minimize ethical transgressions. In October 1971, Taylor witnessed the meeting concerning the firm’s violation of the securities law.
However, the firm did not make a big deal out of it and considered It a “minor” and “technical” violation without making any corrective measures. This indicates that an act of clear legal and ethical violation an be justified by the company as long as it brings in greater profits. Influence of such corporate culture over the Id’s unethical practices was even stronger and more direct after the December meeting with “brain trusts”. Even though they identified the company’s malpractices and a problem on reporting system, they still knowingly advocated to do nothing and discouraged Taylor from implementing the recommendation.
In other words, Id’s corporate culture also does not tolerate someone who has attempted to fix the company’s wrongdoings. In the end, the choice Taylor must make was an extremely difficult one: to report the wrongdoings of his current employer or not. And in the process of making such a challenging decision, Taylor would arrive at the conclusion that if the company was to continue its fraudulent operations, the company would not be able to stay in business and investors would be hurt even more.
Additionally, DC has the corporate culture that minimizes ethical transgressions and does not tolerate ones who stand against the company. It is impossible to change the corrupted corporate culture that has been built up for several years. However by not choosing to report, he would be deceiving Investors and allowing the company to go into a more financially difficult condition because the partnership funds were not sustainable.
Therefore, it would be In his most ethical and logical interest to stop wrongdoings of the company with the help of outside authority such as SEC. International Drilling Corporation By Young-Kim just didn’t care. ” Upon further inspection on the case, it was evident that many DC action. However, if I were Don Taylor, I would choose to report SEC. I believe this is company as well as protect the investors; since many circumstantial situations hence of getting caught for an unethical behavior is low, the perception of people’s wrongdoing is often minimized.
It also appears that the DC executives also tended to concerning the firm’s violation of the securities law. However, the firm did not make a big deal out of it and considered it a “minor” and “technical” violation without making can be Justified by the company as long as it brings in greater profits. Influence of investors and allowing the company to go into a more financially difficult condition because the partnership funds were not sustainable. Therefore, it would be in his
