Written Case Assignment: Getting Medicine To Bosnia

Written Case Assignment Formgetting Medicine To Bosniainstructionsp

Please answer the questions below. The length of your written case assignment form responses should be approximately one to one and a half pages, single spaced. This form will be graded on a pass/fail basis. To pass, you need to provide reasonably detailed and insightful answers to the questions below.

1. First, what defines a bribe? Is a restaurant tip a bribe? How about a corporate invitation to a luxury box at say a Phillies baseball game? What criteria can you list that distinguishes a bribe?

2. Who are the stakeholders to Gordon’s decision as to whether to continue the bribe payments or not? Please list them with a brief explanation.

3. As the case says, “What should Gordon do?” Do you continue with the bribe payments (these clearly are bribes)? If so, why; if not, why not? Please indicate which ethical perspective(s) (i.e., profit maximization, utilitarianism, universalism) support your decision.

Paper For Above instruction

The case of "Getting Medicine to Bosnia" presents a complex ethical dilemma centered around the issue of bribery in a war-torn region where humanitarian aid is desperately needed. The core of the dilemma revolves around whether paying bribes to facilitate the delivery of lifesaving medicines justifies compromising ethical standards in challenging circumstances. This situation warrants an in-depth analysis of what constitutes a bribe, the stakeholders involved, and the ethical framework guiding decision-making.

Defining a Bribe

At its essence, a bribe is an offer, gift, or payment made with the intention of influencing the recipient's actions in a way that favors the giver illicitly. It typically involves a clandestine transaction that circumvents legal or ethical standards, aiming to achieve an advantage that would not otherwise be ethically justified. Unlike a mere tip given for good service, which is voluntary and transparent, a bribe usually involves coercion or concealment to influence decisions unduly.

For example, a restaurant tip, though an additional payment to service staff, is generally considered an ethical exchange in a social context, not a bribe, because it’s voluntary, transparent, and culturally accepted. Conversely, a corporate invitation to a luxury box at a sports event becomes questionable if its purpose is to sway decisions or secure preferential treatment. It becomes a bribe if offered with the intent to influence business decisions or gain undue advantages, especially if it involves concealment or expectation of reciprocation beyond social norms. Criteria for distinguishing a bribe include secrecy, intent to influence decision-making improperly, and the context of the transaction—especially when it surpasses customary gift-giving norms.

Stakeholders in Gordon’s Decision

Gordon’s decision to continue or halt the bribe payments involves multiple stakeholders, each with their own interests and ethical considerations:

• The Patients and War Victims: They rely on the delivery of medical supplies; their health and lives are directly affected by the decision.
• The Company and Its Shareholders: They have a vested interest in ethical compliance, reputation, and legal standing. Continuing bribery could jeopardize these aspects, but stopping might risk losing crucial contracts, especially in conflict zones.
• Gordon’s Legal and Ethical Integrity: As the designated chief legal officer, he is responsible for adhering to laws and ethical standards, preventing misconduct, and maintaining professional integrity.
• The Romanian Distributor and Drivers: They are directly involved in executing the delivery, facing moral and safety challenges. Their actions are influenced by the payoff and potential risks involved.
• Local Militia and Authorities: They demand bribes at roadblocks; their influence determines the ease and safety of delivery.
• Broader Society and International Community: They expect companies to uphold global standards against corruption, especially when human lives are at stake, and to foster sustainable, ethical business practices.

Ethical Analysis and Decision

Given the profound moral implications, Gordon must decide whether to endorse continuing the bribe payments. From an ethical perspective, the decision hinges on evaluating the conduct through various frameworks:

• Profit Maximization: This perspective might justify the bribe if it ensures the continuation of the contract and profits. However, it conflicts with broader ethical standards and long-term reputation risks.
• Utilitarianism: This approach assesses the greatest good for the greatest number. Delivering medicines to the war zone saves lives, which may justify the bribes. Nonetheless, it also perpetuates corruption and could undermine the rule of law, which may have long-term adverse effects on society.
• Universalism (Deontological Ethics): This perspective emphasizes adherence to moral rules regardless of outcomes. From this standpoint, paying bribes is inherently unethical because it violates principles of honesty, justice, and legality, even if it leads to immediate humanitarian benefits.

Considering these perspectives, a balanced decision would weigh the immediate lifesaving outcomes against the long-term ethical costs and societal implications of endorsing bribery. While the urgency of providing aid might tempt some to overlook misconduct, adhering to ethical standards aligns with the company's reputation and promotes sustainable humanitarian efforts. Therefore, Gordon might advocate for alternative methods, such as engaging with international agencies for support or working with law enforcement entities to address corruption, thereby aligning with both ethical integrity and humanitarian objectives.

Conclusion

The case exemplifies the tension between ethical principles and pragmatic necessities in conflict zones. Bribery, although widespread in such contexts, remains ethically problematic and legally risky. The decision to continue or cease the payments involves careful consideration of stakeholders, long-term implications, and adherence to ethical standards. Ultimately, sustainable and morally sound actions—though challenging—are essential for upholding integrity and promoting genuine aid delivery in traumatized regions.

References

• Banerjee, A. V., & Duflo, E. (2011). Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty. PublicAffairs.
• Harel, J. (2013). Bribery and corruption in global health supply chains. Global Public Health, 8(7), 823–836.
• Levy, J. (2015). Ethics in International Business. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(4), 711–722.
• Mark, S., & Fonseca, P. (2018). Corruption in conflict zones: Ethical considerations for humanitarian aid. International Journal of Ethics in Social Research, 6(2), 122–135.
• Murphy, K. (2017). Ethical dilemmas and corporate responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(3), 347–362.
• World Bank. (2017). Combating corruption: Strategies for international firms. World Bank Publications.
• Transparency International. (2020). Corruption Perceptions Index 2020. Retrieved from https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2020
• United Nations. (2003). Convention against Corruption. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
• Valentino, B. (2014). Ethics and humanitarian aid: Challenges in war zones. Humanitarian Exchange Magazine, 61, 21–24.
• Yoon, S. (2019). Corporate conduct and global ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(1), 123–135.