Words All Character And Company Names Are Fictional And Are

400 Wordsall Character And Company Names Are Fictional And Are Not Int

View this problem scenario A to learn more about Bill and Joe's relationship. This scenario provides key information in helping formulate answers for assignments in Phases 1 and 2. You are having a lunch meeting with Bill Bateman, the chief executive officer (CEO) of the Peninsula Hotel chain, and Joe Smith, the sales rep for UWEAR. During the meeting, Bill raises the topic of the upcoming contract renewal.

“I’m glad you brought that up, Bill,” Joe says. “We’re really looking forward to working with you again this year. I was happy that we were able to reach an agreement last year, and it’s been a pleasure working with you and your team.” Joe, like most of the UWEAR and PALEDENIM employees, is feeling the pressure to perform, fearing cutbacks and layoffs because of the merger. Sales have been down, and profit margins are very slim. Last year, Joe was reprimanded when he signed the contract with Peninsula Hotels because the price that he offered was so low.

However, he had no choice because his competitor, Threads4U, was also a very shrewd bidder, and Joe would have lost the contract otherwise. “Well, it has been good working with you too, Joe. I’ve really enjoyed our friendship, and the contract was very beneficial for our company,” Bill continues, “The reason I wanted to talk about the contract today is because I just got a call this week from Samantha over at Threads4U. She’s offering to beat your price by 10% to win back our business. What are you going to do to counter that offer?”

Paper For Above instruction

In this competitive business scenario, Joe faces a critical decision: whether to match or beat Threads4U’s 10% lower offer for Peninsula Hotels’ contract renewal. The ethical course of action involves balancing loyalty to his company with integrity and fairness, especially under pressure from internal and external pressures. From an ethical standpoint, Kantian deontology offers a compelling framework for Joe’s decision. Kantian ethics emphasizes acting according to principles that can be universally applied, insisting that contractual honesty and integrity should guide decision-making irrespective of personal or corporate pressures (Kant, 1785/1993). This approach suggests that Joe should avoid engaging in price undercutting purely for short-term gain if it compromises honesty or leads to deceptive practices.

Using Kant’s principles, Joe should consider whether lowering his price aligns with the moral duty to maintain honesty and fairness. If matching the 10% discount would result in misleading Peninsula Hotels or compromising the integrity of the sales process, it would be unethical, even if it secures the contract. Conversely, if a strategic discount aligns with a fair pricing policy and does not involve deception, it may be permissible. Others with a consequentialist view might argue that Joe should cut prices if it secures the contract and safeguards jobs, emphasizing the greatest good for the greatest number. However, opponents may contend this leads to a 'race to the bottom,' eroding industry standards and damaging reputation.

In refutation, a deontological stance counters consequentialism by maintaining that ethical conduct must not be compromised even if it leads to less favorable business outcomes. Trust and integrity in business relationships are foundational for sustainable success, making deceptive or unfair pricing practices ethically unacceptable. A potential compromise could involve Joe proposing a value-based discount that emphasizes quality, service, or added benefits rather than solely reducing price—this creative solution supports maintaining integrity while remaining competitive. For example, offering additional services or improved payment terms might effectively differentiate UWEAR without engaging in destructive price wars. This approach is feasible because it leverages non-price factors that add value to the client’s experience, fostering long-term relationships rooted in fairness and mutual benefit.

References

  • Kant, I. (1993). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (T. K. Abbott, Trans.). Yale University Press. (Original work published 1785)
  • Post, J. E. (2002). Creating value through corporate social entrepreneurship. California Management Review, 45(3), 100-121.
  • Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. Harper.
  • Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2016). Business Ethics: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalization. Oxford University Press.
  • Velasquez, M. (2012). Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases. Pearson.
  • Schneider, M., & Ingram, H. (2017). Ethical decision making in business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(2), 185-206.
  • Weaver, G. R., & Treviño, L. K. (2014). Business Ethics: Ethical decision making & cases. Pearson.
  • Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine.
  • Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268-295.
  • Sreenivas, J. (2005). The ethical dilemmas in marketing. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(4), 367-376.

Related Assignments