~L- _

Ethical Decision-Making Framework

After reading this chapter, you will be able to:

• Apply several sets of ethics questions to business issues

• Use a systematic ethics decision-making framework to

arrive at moral conclusions

• Understand the five most important ethical theories

• Persuade others by speaking in their ethical language

• Facilitate a negotiation between competing ethical

perspectives

• Recognize warning signs that an unethical decision is

approaching

Codes of Conduct cannot cover every business situation that might

arise. Employees need to know how to independently derive a moral

answer to business issues. Several frameworks are available to help

employees understand the ethical basis of their decisions and actions.

77

Ethical Decision-Making Framework

This chapter summarizes two common ethical decision-making

frameworks and then offers a systemic six-question ethics decision-

making framework grounded in moral philosophy. A process for per-

suading people who approach a decision from a different ethical per-

spective and warning signs that an unethical situation is arising are

also provided. The material in this chapter can also be used as the

basis of an ethics workshop.

Rotary International's Four-Way Test

How do you know if the decision you are about to make is ethical? A

simple framework for analyzing the ethical dimension of a decision is

Rotary International's Four-Way Test. More than 1.2 million busi-

ness, professional, and community leaders are members ofRotary In-

ternational, and there are more than 32,000 Rotary clubs around the

world. In 1943, the Rotary adopted the following Code of Ethics,

referred to as The Four-Way Test: 1

Of the things we think, say, or do:

1. Is it the TRUTH?

2. Is it FAIR to all concerned?

3. Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?

4. Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?

Raytheon's Ethics Quick Test

Raytheon provides its employees with an Ethics Quick Test, consist-

ing of the following questions to consider when facing an ethical

dilemma: 2

78

The Ethics Decision-Making Framework

• Is the action legal?

• Is it right?

• Who will be affected?

• Does it fit Raytheon's values?

• How will I feel afterwards?

• How would it look in the newspaper?

• Will it reflect poorly on the company?

The Ethics Decision-Making Framework

The Rotary's Four-Way Test and Raytheon's Ethics Quick Test are

very helpful lists of questions, yet not philosophically systematic.

The moral philosophy literature provides a more systematic ap-

proach for deriving moral conclusions. Ethical reasoning is just like

any other managerial problem-solving process. When confronting a

problem, managers typically list the available options and determine

which alternative makes the most sense. The same decision-making

process can be applied to ethical reasoning.

Strong consensus, though not absolute agreement, exists among

philosophers that some ethical reasons are more morally acceptable

than others. For example, it has been long established that "doing to

others as you would want done to you" takes precedence over an

individual's self-interests when these two ethical theories are in con-

flict, although some hard-core libertarians might object. This ranking

of ethical principles can be found in all cultures.

Exhibit 5.1 provides an ethics decision-making framework that

I. 3

parallels Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of mora reasonmg.

79

Ethical Decision-Making Framework

EXHIBIT 5.1

An Ethics Decision-Making Framework

Instructions: Answer Questions 1 through 6 to gather the informa-tion necessary for performing an ethical analysis. Based on this in-formation, develop a decision that has the strongest ethical basis.

1. Who are all the people affected by the action?

2. Is the action beneficial to me?

3. Is the action supported by my social group?

4. Is the action supported by national laws?

5. Is the action for the greatest good of the greatest number of

people affected by it?

6. Are the motives behind the action based on truthfulness and

respect/integrity toward each stakeholder?

• If answers to Questions 2 through 6 are all "yes, "then do it.

• If answers to Questions 2 through 6 are all "no, "then do not do it.

• If answers to Questions 2 through 6 are mixed, then modify your

decision.

• If answers to Questions 5 and 6 are "yes," this action is

the most ethical. You may need to modify this decision in

consideration of any' 'no" answer to Questions 2 through 4.

• If answers to Questions 5 and 6 are "no," this action is

the least ethical. Modify this decision in consideration of

these objections.

• If answers to Questions 5 and 6 are mixed, this action is

moderately ethical. Modify this decision in considerations of

objections raised by Questions 5 or 6. You may need to

further modify this decision in consideration of any "no"

answer to Questions 2 through 4.

80

The Five Ethical Theories

The six question framework can help managers reach a moral

conclusion regarding the rightness or wrongness of any decision.

The answers to Questions 5 and 6 point managers in the direction

of the most moral decision. Doing something because the action is

to the greatest good of the greatest number of people affected by it,

and treats all stakeholders with respect and integrity, provides a tre-

mendous amount of moral certitude. But if that action also might

result in the decision-maker being fired (Question 2), more reflec-

tion might be needed to determine how to do what is right with-

out being fired.Note how the "legal" answer is not the highest ethical theory.

Laws are not created out of thin air, they are justified by concerns

about the greatest good for the greatest number and respect for

everyone. Laws that fail to meet these two fundamental ethical con-

cerns are usually an issue ofpublic and political concern, debated, and

sometimes changed.The following sections describe the ethical foundation behind

the questions that appear in Exhibit 5.1. Understanding the ethical

foundation provides employees with greater confidence when apply-

ing the decision-making framework. In addition, the ethical theories

enable employees to understand why they reach different moral con-

clusions for a particular decision.

The Five Ethical Theories

Questions 2 through 6 of the ethics decision-making framework each

represent one of the five major ethical theories. The first question-

"Who are all the people affected by the action?"-is referred to as

81

Ethical Decision-Making Framework

stakeholder analysis and not considered an ethical theory. IdentifYing all

the people affected by a decision helps to inform the ethical analysis.

The five ethical theories are ordered in Exhibit 5.2 beginning with

the most basic and ending with the most important. Egoism (Question

2) is the most basic ethical theory; deontology is the most important and

demanding ethical theory (Question 6). View these five ethical theories

as sequential steps on a moral ladder, and the first step is egoism.

z

Five Ethical Theories

Egoism. How does the action relate to me? If the action furthers

my interests, it is right. If it conflicts with my interests, it is

wrong.

Social group relativism. How does the action relate to my social

group (peers, friends, etc.)? If the action conforms with the so-

cial group's norms, it is right. If it is contrary to the social group's

norms, it is wrong.

Cultural relativism. How does the action relate to the national

culture, particularly its laws? If the action conforms with the law,

it is right. If it is contrary to the law, it is wrong.

Utilitarianism. How does the action relate to everyone who is af-

fected by it? If the action is beneficial to the greatest number of

people affected by it, it is right. If it is detrimental to the greatest

number, it is wrong.

Deontology. How does the action relate to my duty to become an

ideal human being who treats others in the way that I would want

to be treated? Does it treat every stakeholdertruthfully and with

respect and integrity? If it does, it is right. If it does not, it is

wrong.

82

The Five Ethical Theories

Egoism

When faced with a decision, an egoist asks: "How does the action

relate to me? If the action conforms with my interests, it is right. If it

conflicts with my interests, it is wrong." Egoists tend to reason as fol-

lows: "I strongly believe that x is the best decision, because that is my

personal preference."

In Theory if Moral Sentiments and Wealth ifNations, Adam Smithemphasizes that people very naturally make economic decisions

based on self-interest. Egoism is a morally acceptable ethical theory,

as long as the pursuit of self-interest does not collapse into selfishness

or generate harm.

Ayn Rand's novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are

among the most engaging articulations of the importance of ego-

ism. Who we are, and what our interests are, matters a great deal.

According to Rand, the best thing for the common good is to

become an individual of high integrity willing to pursue one's

self-interests at all costs.

Egoism as the predominant ethical theory, however, can be very

problematic for organizations. In highly politicized organizations,

individuals fight for scarce resources, such as office space or budgets,

even though it is clearly more beneficial to the organization if one

particular person received the scarce resource. If egoism is the pre-

dominant ethical theory, then the more politically powerful or astute

employee gets the scarce resource, to the detriment of organizational

performance.Whose interests matter the most when two people have con-

flicting interests? Egoists seeking a reasonable solution to conflicts

that arise between their interests and the interests of others will

83

Ethical Decision-Making Framework

usually broaden their understanding to include the interests of

larger social groups, thus taking the next step up the moral rea-

soning ladder.

Social Group Relativism

When faced with a decision, a social group relativist asks: "How does

the action relate to my social group? If the action conforms with my

social group's norms, it is right. If it is contrary to my social group's

norms, it is wrong." Social group relativists tend to reason as follows:

"I strongly believe that x is the best decision, because that is what my

social group supports."

Associating oneself with the ethical standards of a group is often

considered to be a higher stage of moral reasoning than egoism. So-

cial group relativists are very concerned about what their social group

(such as other managers, industry councils, and professional associa-

tions) thinks about an issue.

Social group relativism is a common ethical theory. Managers

usually feel a strong affinity for the interests of other managers.

When problems arise, a manager might ask other managers what

they have done in the past when faced with a similar problem. The

decision-maker wants to do what a good manager would do in the

particular situation.

Similarly, nonmanagement employees usually feel a strong affinity

for the interests of other nonmanagement employees, customers tend

to view things from a customer's perspective, suppliers tend to view

things from a supplier's perspective, and community members tend to

view things from a community member's perspective.

84

The Five Ethical Theories

Social group relativism as the predominant ethical theory, how-

ever, can be very problematic for organizations. In highly politicized

organizations, departments fight for scarce resources even though it is

clearly more beneficial to the organization if one particular depart-

ment received the scarce resource. If social group relativism is the

predominant ethical theory, then the more politically powerful or as-

tute department or social group gets the scarce resource, to the detri-

ment of organizational performance.

Which social group's interests matter the most when the two pri-

mary social groups involved in the situation have conflicting inter-

ests? Social group relativists seeking a reasonable solution to this

dilemma will usually broaden their understanding to include the

interests of the entire organization or larger society, thus taking the

next step up the moral reasoning ladder.

Cultural Relativism

When faced with a decision a cultural relativist asks: "How does the

action relate to my national culture, particularly the law? If the action

conforms with the law, it is right. If it is contrary to the law, it is

wrong." Cultural relativists tend to reason as follows: "I strongly be-

lieve that x is the right thing to do, because the law says so."

Associating oneself with the ethical standards embodied within a

nation's laws is often considered to be a higher stage of moral reason-

ing than social group relativism. The person perceives herself or him-

self as a member of a larger society that has some common interests.

Cultural relativists are very concerned about what the legal sys-

tem thinks about an issue. Laws are established through two distinct

85

Ethical Decision-Making Framework

processes, Congress and the judicial system. Political legislation is the

result of politicians presenting competing perspectives and reaching a

conclusion by voting on the issue. Judicial laws are the result oflaw-

yers presenting competing perspectives; a conclusion is reached by a

judge hearing the case.

Cultural relativism is also a rather conunon ethical theory. Many

managers do not want to break the law, even when doing so might

personally benefit them or their company. When problems arise,

they review the law, or ask company lawyers to provide them with a

legal opinion. They want to do what is right in the eyes of the legal

establishment.

Cultural relativism as the predominant ethical theory, however,

can be very problematic for organizations. Sometimes laws conflict

with one another, or following the law endangers the lives of others.

Just because something is legal does not mean that it is ethical.

Cultural relativists seeking a reasonable solution to these dilem-

mas will usually broaden their understanding to include either deter-

mining the greatest good for the greatest number of people affected

or individual rights, thus taking the next step up the moral reasoning

ladder. These two highest theories are aimed at minimizing the most

common human biases-a preference for our own interests, our so-

cial group's interests, or our culture's interests.

Utilitarianism

When faced with a decision, a utilitarian asks: "How does the action

relate to everyone who is affected by it? If it is beneficial to the ma-

jority, then it is right. If it is detrimental to the majority of people,

86

The Five Ethical Theories

then it is wrong." Utilitarians tend to reason as follows: "I strongly

believe that x is the best decision, because it beneflts the greatest

number of people."Concern about an action's impact on the general welfare is often

considered to be a higher stage of moral reasoning than cultural rela-

tivism. In this sense, the person is not just concerned about national

laws, but whether the law is morally justified when the well-being of

others are taken into consideration.

Utilitarians emphasize the consequences of an action on all those

affected by it. The ethics of capitalism is based on utilitarian logic-

the economic pursuit of self-interest improves national wealth more

than other economic systems.

Everyone counts equally under utilitarianism. There can be no

favoritism based on status or power. Utilitarian-thinking managers

would centrally locate a scarce piece of equipment needed by every-

one, rather than give preference to the employee or department with

the most political power. Whatever is best for the organization deter-

mines the action taken.How can a manager know what is best for everyone? One formal

method is to allow each affected person to vote his or her preference.

Democracy is utilitarian in the sense that everyone's vote counts

equally. Following an unresolved contentious debate at a manage-

ment meeting, someone might suggest that a binding vote be taken.

The outcome of the vote is considered legitimate because it expresses

the will of the majority.In 1996, Ken Lay applied utilitarian logic, as well as the other

ethical theories, to determine who should be Enron's new chief op-

erating officer (COO), the person who would eventually succeed

87

Ethical Decision-Making FrameworkThe Five Ethical Theories

When faced with a decision, a deontologist asks: "How does the

action relate to my duty to treat others in the way that I would

want to be treated? Does it treat every person truthfully and with

Meanwhile, Skilling's weaknesses included a lack of hands-oncash management experience, taking extreme risks, impatiencewith those who did not quickly grasp his intellectual and vision-ary insights, competitiveness with other executives, and

arrogance.

DECISION CHOICE. If you were the CEO of Enron, who would you

promote to COO:

o The CEO of the traditional natural gas pipeline division?e Jeff Skilling, the CEO of the highly successful Gas Bank

division?

e The CEO of the growing international division?o A highly qualified outsider?Why?

Deontology

Utilitarianism as the predominant ethical theory, however, can be

very problematic for organizations. Managers of an organization

composed of white males might decide that the organization would

pelform with optimal harmony if it did not employ any women or

African-Americans. Or, managers might decide not to install pollu-

tion prevention devices that would only beneflt a few people living

near the facility.Utilitarians seeking a reasonable solution to these issues will

usually broaden their understanding to include human rights, thus

taking the final step up the moral reasoning ladder.

Transferring ManagerialPower-1996

Investment b 's SPE arrange-ments, and Enron r ported levels. Withthe help of mergers and acquisit became the world'slargest natural gas company, and its stock price continued toperform well. In'1996, Fortune magazine named Enron "ca's Most Innovative Company."

Ken Lay, having saved the company, was now ready to tr hisuccessor. Enron's future CEO would first have to learn how tomanage the Fortune 100 firm's day-to-day operations as ChiefOperating Officer (COO). Lay's plan called for the COO to be pro-moted to CEO by 2001.

The three internal candidates for COO were the CEO of Enron'straditional natural gas pipeline division, the CEO of the highlysuccessful Gas Bank division (Jeff Skilling), and the CEO of thegrowing international business division. A fourth possibility wasto hire a highly qualified outsider. '

Skilling strongly advocated for the position and threatened toquit if not promoted to COO. Skilling accused the internationaldivision's CEO of mismanagement and incompetence. He p-posed the natural gas pipeline division CEO, arguing that t neweconomy valued intellectual skills and market transactions morehighly than traditional brick-and-mortar assets. Only he, Skillingargued, possessed the appropriate vision for Enron.

him as Enron's future CEO (see In the Real World: Traniferring Mana-

gerial Power-1996). This person would need to please multiple

stakeholder groups by inspiring employees and stockholders and ap-

propriately managing customer, supplier, and government relations.

8889

Ethical Decision-Making Framework

integrity? If it does, then it is right. If it does not, then it is

wrong." Deontologists tend to reason as follows: "I strongly be-

lieve that x is the best decision, because we have a duty to treat

everyone with respect."

Respecting all stakeholders is often considered the highest stage

of moral reasoning. In this sense, the individual is not just concerned

about the will of the majority, but whether each and every person is

treated fairly.

Deontologists emphasize the motives behind an action and indi-

vidual rights, rather than consequences. They follow "moral rules,"

such as the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, "do unto

others as you would want done to you." People who want others to

respect them have a duty to respect others. For a deontologist, the

appropriate action is to always be honest, keep promises, provide mu-

tual aid when needed, and respect people and property. Deontolo-

gists want to embody the moral qualities of a saint.

Deontology gives managers the most difficult moral problems,

because the ethical theory demands that the organization respect

every stakeholder all the time in its pursuit ofrevenue or profits.

Wal-Mart's recent evolution is a classic case of deontology's

power. Wal-Mart achieved the lowest prices and high corporate prof-

its by paying employees below living wages and denying them afford-

able healthcare coverage. In response to the negative publicity caused

by media exposes and social justice activists, Wal-Mart improved

employee wages and health benefits.

Although deontology is considered the most important ethical

theory, it too can be very problematic if considered in isolation from

the four ethical theories on the lower rungs of the moral reasoning

90

Persuading Others

ladder. Focusing solely on respecting the interests of every stake-

holder is not always achievable, practical, or desirable.

Assume that given time and budget limitations, employees must

choose whether to provide preferential service to the largest reve-

nue-generating customer or give all customers an equal amount of

inadequate service. The 80120 Rule suggests that 20% of an organi-

zation's customer base provides 80% of its revenue. 4 If the top reve-

nue-generating customers are not satisfied, they might take their

business elsewhere, which could bankrupt the organization.

Deontologists seeking a reasonable solution to these issues will

usually broaden their understanding to include general welfare calcu-

lations, legal concerns, social group-interests, and self-interests.

Both utilitarianism and deontology matter a great deal. In many

situations, the two highest ethical theories arrive at similar conclu-

sions, providing the decision-maker with a tremendous amount of

moral certitude. Sometimes they may conflict. When this happens,

respecting everyone is considered the most important ethical response.

When this is not a practical solution, serving the greatest good or one

of the other ethical theories takes on greater moral weight.

Persuading Others

After applying the ethical decision-making framework, two employ-

ees may still sincerely disagree about what is the ethically correct ac-

tion to take. Most managers are primarily social group relativists

(Qu'estion 3) and concerned about the law (Question 4). Other man-

agers may be primarily egoists (Question 2), utilitarians (Question 5),

or deontologists (Question 6).

91

Ethical Decision-Making Framework

When this happens in organizations, the person with higher sta-

tus tends to get his or her way. This conflict resolution approach

assumes that the higher status person is, by default, more ethical, an

assumption that has been proven false innumerable times in human

history. This conflict resolution approach also damages employee

morale and can result in unethical behaviors and lawsuits.

A healthier approach is for people to listen carefully to each

other, categorize the other person's response in terms of one of the

five ethical theories, and then reframe the analysis using the other

person's ethical theory.

Each ethical theory is like a different foreign language. Egoism

(self-interests) is equivalent to speaking English while Utilitarianism

(greatest good) is equivalent to Spanish. If an English speaker wants

to persuade a Spanish speaker, the English speaker must communi-

cate in Spanish, otherwise no progress will be made. The same logic

applies to the use of ethical theories.

Assume that an egoist believes the right thing to do is x, a utilitar-

ian believes the right thing is ]', and the egoist wants to persuade the

utilitarian. Utilitarians do not care what is in their self-interest so,

appealing to a utilitarian's self-interest will fall on deaf ears. What

utilitarians do care about is the greatest good for the greatest number

of people. To be persuasive, the egoist must communicate using utili-

tarian reasoning and demonstrate how a greatest good analysis results

in doing x rather than ]'.

Similarly, egoists do not care about the greatest good for the

greatest number of people, so appealing to an egoist's sense of the

greatest good will fall on deaf ears. What egoists do care about is their

92

Persuading Others

self-interests. To be persuasive, the utilitarian must communicate

using egoistic reasoning and demonstrate how it is in the individual's

self-interest to do ]' rather than x.

After hearing all of these different perspectives, consensus still

might not be achieved, and the decision-maker has to reach a deci-

sion unilaterally. By going through this process, the decision maker is

able to justifY the decision based on all of the competing ethical theo-

ries. The other employees may not agree with the manager's fmal

conclusion, but they will understand the manager's ethical reasoning,

and be able to convey that reasoning to other organizational

members.

93

Ethical Decision-Making Framework

Ten "Ethical Hazard Approaching" Signs

Employees in a manufacturing facility with toxic chemicals are visually

warned when entering hazardous areas by flashing red lights, loud

sirens, and large signs with skulls and crossbones. Unfortunately, warn-

ing lights do not flash when employees enter an ethical hazard zone.

MichaelJosephson describes 10 common rationalizations for un-

ethical acts. 6 Pause and reflect on the thought, "I~'s ethical because it's

lega1." Ethics is more than just the law. Laws change all the time, of-

ten because an individual, or group of people, strongly believes that

an existing law, such as slavery in the 19th century, is unethica1.

Josephson's ten rationalizations are presented as "ethical hazard

approaching" signs in Exhibit 5.3. Employees must be trained to

recognize these rationalizations and then apply the systematic ethical

decision-making framework to determine a moral answer.

EXHIBIT 5.3

Ten "Ethical Hazard Approaching" Signs

Beware When Someone Says:

1. It's ethical if it's legal and permissible.

2. It's ethical if it's necessary.

3. It's ethical if it'sjust part ofthejob.

4. It's ethical if it's all for a good cause.

5. It's ethical if I'm just doing it for you.

6. It's ethical ifl'mjustfighting fire with fire.

7. It's ethical if it doesn't hurt anyone.

8. It's ethical if everyone else is doing it.

9. It's ethical if I don't gain personally.

10. It's ethical if I've got it coming.

94

Notes

Summary

This chapter provides a systemic ethics decision-making framework

for deriving moral conclusions to business problems. The framework

takes into consideration the perspectives offive major ethical theories

and rank-orders their concerns in a useful manner. Using this frame-

work helps employees understand the ethical ramifications of busi-

ness issues.

Notes

1. www.rotary.org, accessed 9/08/08.

2. Dayton Fandray, "The Ethical Company," Workforce, 79, no. 12

(2000): 74-78, available at www.raytheon.com/stewardship/

ethics/index.html, accessed 9/08/08.

3. Denis Collins and Laura Page, "A Socrates/Ted Koppel Paradigm

for Integrating the Teaching of Business Ethics in the Curricu-

lum;' in Sandra Waddock, ed., Research in CorporateSocial Perform-

ance and Policy, 15, Supplement 2, special issue on "Teaching

Business and Society Courses with Reflective and ActiVe Learn-

ing Strategies" (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1997): 221-242.

4. Richard Koch, The 80/20 Principle (New York: Currency Books,

1999).

5. Warren French, "Business Ethics Training: Face-to-Face and at a

Distance," Journal if Business Ethics, 66, no. 1 (2006): 117-126.6. http://j osephsoninstitute. org/business/overview/ faq .html#10,

accessed 8/15/08.

95

Creating anOrganization of High

Integrity and SuperiorPerformance

Denis Collins

@WILEY

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. .

2008054163

This book is printed on acid-free paper. @

Copyright © 2009 by Denis Collins. All rights reserved.

Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.Published simultaneously in Canada.

No part ofthis publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or byany means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permittedunder Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior writtenpermission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to theCopyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923,978-750-8400, fax 978-646-8600, or on the Web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should beaddressed to the Permissions Department,John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030,201-748-6011, fax 201-748-6008, or online at wwv.wiley.com/go/permissions.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts inpreparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy orcompleteness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties ofmerchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by salesrepresentatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable foryour situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor authorshall be liable for any loss ofprofit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special,incidental, consequential, or other damages.

For general information on our other products and services, or technical support, please contact ourCustomer Care Department within the United States at 800-762-2974, outside the United States at 317-572-3993 or fax 317-572-4002.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety ofelectronic formats. Some content that appears in print may notbe available in electronic books.

For more information about Wiley products, visit our Web site at www.wiley.com.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in·Publication Data

Collins, Denis, 1956-Essentials of business ethics: creating an organization of high integrity and superior

performance/Denis Collins.p. cm. – (Essentials series)

Includes index.ISBN 978-0-470-44256-2 (pbk.)

1. Business ethics. I. Title.HF5387.C6252009174'.4-dc22

Printed in the United States of America

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1