Former Case Study Development

3192 Words13 Pages
Formal Case Study Development Case 3.1 Big Brother at Procter & Gamble April 12, 2012 Ethical Decision Making: A Model for Case Study Analysis Summary of the Case and the Stakeholders This case involves Proctor and Gamble (P&G) and how they responded to two articles printed in the Wall Street Journal. They investigated their employee’s phone records and hired an investigator from the Cincinnati fraud squad, who was also a part time P&G employee, to grill a former P&G employee. P&G’s CEO was angry with the Wall Street Journal reporter for printing stories he was not ready to reveal. The reporter, on the other hand, thought that the CEO had deliberately lied to her days earlier when she attempted to confirm the story. She felt he sabotaged the Wall Street Journal by allowing the New York Times to run the story. P&G’s position on their actions was stated as being due to the “significant and ongoing leaks of our confidential business data, plans and strategies.” They filed a complaint which resulted in a grand jury investigation. It was based on 1967 and 1974 laws which made it a crime for employees to give away articles representing trade secrets and prohibits employees from disclosing confidential information. Reporters are protected by the First Amendment and in Ohio, “shield-laws” protect the reporters’ confidential sources identity. The Ohio laws’ interpretation was ambiguous; therefore, P&G’s claims were unfounded. P&G received criticism from many, including The Cincinnati chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, a Wall Street Journal editorial, and a New York Times columnist. They continued to deny any wrongdoing. No charges were filed against any individuals. The fraud squad investigator later went to work for P&G full-time. Listed below are the primary people and organizations involved in the case: Procter and Gamble – The
Open Document