P & G Case

Q1.

            Based on the facts of the case and the fact that the case is already in possession on the marketing manager and that the situation has clearly gotten out of hand I would assert that the marketing manager’s decision to attempt to “keep a lid” on the situation is in fact ethical, while I would consider his/her decision to not use the information which has already been obtained unethical. The situation has no clear absolute ethical solution however by considering of the efficiency perspective and the social responsibility perspective, the utilitarian, moral rights, and universal approaches, as well the companies implied ethical codes I would conclude that the information should be used, why the situation should be brought under control. From the perspective of efficiency, the fact that P & G is in a “life and death struggle” with it’s competitor and many other options, such as expansion, has failed it would certainly be then unethical for the manager to not use the information. For the information is already in possession of the marketing manager, whatever damage which has been done by the contractors has already been done, would not only not benefit the owners of the company, but would in fact go against the wishes of the stockholders and likely damaging the company. Even from a social responsibility perspective the actions of P & G, though the legally questionable actions of the contractors may seem unsavory to the general public and consumers, are part of a known legal practice of “corporate espionage”. Society, the community, and consumers are marginally affected by these actions, however, the main stakeholders in this case are the stockholders and hence their demands must be considered to be foremost. However, based on both the consideration of both efficiency and social responsibility “putting a lid on the situation and telling those involved to back off” is indeed an ethical course of action. As further practice of aggressive information gathering from Unilever would most likely cause a stronger reaction from Unilever, consumers, and society at large, which would clash with societal values and affect efficiency as profit may be affected by the resulting bad press. Using an utilitarian approach to this case one would see that not using the information would not result in the greater good, in terms of profits, for the company while controlling the situation would in terms of avoiding bad publicity and even possible legal action. From a moral rights approach the actions of the contractors are indeed morally ambiguous, if not outright wrong, however, the practice of espionage is itself widely known and used. Keeping the situation under wraps may seem morally questionable, however based on the P & G’s company ethic of being “obsessed with controlling information”, the action is very much within the companies ethics. Finally from a universalistic approach, it is implied in the passage that corporate espionage, apparently very profitable, it can be assumed that many big companies, such as Unilever also conduct such practices, thus this course of action could be considered ethical to use the information already gathered.

Q2.

            Based on the information in the passage and based on a variety of ethical approaches and considerations I would, as the marketing manager, suggest that the company to sacrifice the contractors and protect P & G. First off I considered the utilitarian approach to this ethical dilemma. By sacrificing the contractors and avoiding the publicity the company would avoid a high magnitude consequence in that P & G, who is already struggling financially, would avoid the bad publicity and consequently a drop in sales resulting from likely negative consumer and societal reaction to disclosure of the raid on Unilever would damage the greatest good for a huge number of people from company stockholders to employees. From a moral approach it would seem highly ethically questionable to sacrifice a small number of people for the benefit of a majority, however, when one considers that the outside intelligence contractors and the sub-contractors they hired got out of hand and committed unethical and in fact illegal acts such a trespassing they themselves had acted unethically and should be punished based on compensatory justice. In addition, from the approach of universalism, the practice of corporate information gathering is in itself not illegal and the passage implies that is a flourishing industry, thus a practice which is widely accepted in the industry is not unethical as it is used by P & G. It is only that the contractors approach to what they were hired to do was out of line, but P & G and the owners to which the marketing managers are responsible should not be held accountable and the large part of the concentration of effect of the consequences should be on the contractors. Finally, the company ethic of guarding information would make a public apology and the publicity on the company’s practices would violate the company’s ethics.

Q3.

            Though the situation at P & G is extremely complex from an ethical perspective, but were I to offer the most ethically sound proposal I would suggest a three part approach. First, I would make use of the 80 page information which has been obtained. I suggest this from a largely Utilitarian perspective, as P & G is in a “life or death struggle” for a very limited market and growth has been promised to the company’s stockholders the efficiency perspective must be of high concern. To not use the information which must be assumed by both Unilever and anyone privy to the raid to have been seen and used by P & G, would not be to the greatest good of both the stockholders and the many employees of the multinational company. Certainly from a moral rights approach no situation is plan is ideal, but the concerns of the concentration of effects and magnitude of consequences for the company as a  whole, who is fighting a desperate battle with competitors and who presumably employs a large number of employees would outweigh the unethical nature of information which cannot be returned. The second part of my proposal would be to offer some form of compensation, weather monetary or otherwise, to Unilever. From the social responsibility perspective, the only stakeholder beyond P & G’s owners is Unilever. On the principles of compensatory justice, Unilever should certainly be compensated for P & G’s blatant and outrageous raid. In this way P & G avoid larger losses and Unilever, who would have problems ethically attacking P & G for the legal and widely accepted practice of corporate espionage, would receive compensation and the greatest good is achieved. Any remaining responsibility can ethically be left to be taken by the contractors and the sub-contractors they’ve hired. They are morally reprehensible based on the approach they took to gathering information such as trespassing. They should thus be punished based on the principle of distributive justice.

Q4.

            Based on analysis of ethics and morality I would assert that gathering competitive intelligence is for the most part ethical as long as it does not engage in illegal activity and not involve the personal privacy of individuals. Based on utilitarianism and the perspective of efficiency managers should be able to use any means within in legal and general ethical standards of the society in which it operates. Certainly any practice which is illegal or legally ambiguous, such as trespassing and posing a company personnel, such as in the case of the corporate espionage contractors, would be most likely considered unethical from a moral rights approach, but more importantly inefficient from an efficiency and social responsibility perspective. Certainly illegal actions by a major corporation would carry rather high morality intensity from society, the consumers, and certainly the government and the damage done to the organization’s reputation and public relations would far out way potential gain from information gained from such activities. In addition, any personal information gathered about members of a company would go beyond the ethical standards of many societies from any approach even disregarding possible legal consequences. However, beyond these limits the fact that the general practice of gathering competitive information is not illegal and more importantly it is widely accepted, as it is a $2 billion dollar organized industry, within society. Not only does such practices presumably enjoy a level of social consensus on their ethical nature, but also from a universal approach the practice is applied to many if not most companies and thus it can be defended ethically as accepted ethical practice in business.