By not mentioning other companies that use the same tactics, he puts a negative image on Nike alone instead of all American companies who choose to outsource manufacturing to foreign countries. I think it’s kind of ironic that Mr. Ballinger is doing research on ethical practices of American companies when he himself is using an unethical approach to his research. Another fact that he fails to mention is that what Nike is doing is not illegal. Unethical, yes, but due to weak policies in some of these foreign companies, it allows for American, or any other nation’s companies, to exploit these practices. Also, why doesn’t he mention anything about the retailers who sell Nike shoes?
Instructor: Peter Bannon Nike, Inc., and Sweatshops – A Case Study Ethics & Stakeholder Management-MGMT 703-102 Submitted By, Arulraj Rajaram-300729443 Strategic Management Date: 09th July, 2013 1) What are the ethical and social issues in this case? A) Poor & Harsh Public Relations: It is evident from the case that, Nike didn’t have a proper public relation system. They were harsh with the media in response to the complaint made by Jonah Peretti about Nike refusing to take his order. Nike didn’t give clear clarifications to Jonah as well as to the public. They refused to take any responsibility and instead tried to prove that there isn’t any mistake from the company’s side.
He focused more on the amount of revenue the company made than on the business ethics. Arthur Andersen auditors failed to audit Enron’s financial statements according to the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and failed to advice the audit committee of conflicts of interest with internal controls. They approved Special Purpose Entities which were used to generate false profits, hide losses, and kept financing off Enron’s consolidated financial statements, and they did not consider the advice of their quality control partner. 3. What was the primary motivation behind the decisions of Arthur Andersen’s audit partners on the Enron audit: the public interest or something else?
The development of the clip on camera device did not used any resources, information from Taser. The court declined Taser’s suit because wasn’t able to provide evidence that Ward used specific information in developing his product. Also because there wasn’t any agreement between Taser and Ward, were it restricted the employee from competing in a future with the employer. I agree with the court’s decision because when Ward came with the
The OSHA investigation concluded that if these regulations were followed, the tragic event could have been avoided. The legal issue is whether or not the courts and the construction company itself should up hold the violations of specific OSHA standards. Explain what the employer did or failed to do that violated the OSH Act. Williams Construction failed to do four very important procedures in regards to the regulations of OSHA. The first violation was the failure to provide training to employees and their managers about how to recognize and avoid unsafe working conditions.
Micromanagement like this puts employees in a threatened state and unable to perform their best. Additionally, while the reward system may have appeared functional, it ultimately was very poorly designed. Employees felt incentivized to simply “impress” their superiors, which did not necessarily correlate with actual performance. Further, the assessment cloaked evaluations as a part of career development counseling, creating a conflict of interest for the auditor collecting performance information from the employees. Finally, the evaluation system failed to require managers to provide feedback to their reports, inhibiting an environment of learning or growth.
Clearly Mark was a director that showed no concern at all for the clients and I believe that he mishandled the funds. He only went to work for a paycheck and not because he cared. Is the director an ethical role model? The director is not an ethical role model at all. Were the director’s messages congruent with the organization’s stated mission?
Finally, the Board of Directors was not sufficiently independent or engaged to oversee WorldCom’s affairs. This meant that WorldCom’s leadership did not have checks on its power and there was no oversight to ensure that this privilege was not abused. Analysis Company Strategy When the Sprint merger was turned down in 2000, it resulted in the company losing its strategic direction since acquisitions were no longer a viable option for growth. Deteriorating industry conditions in 2000 meant WorldCom, along with the rest of the 1 telecommunications industry, was suffering. Since the company had lost its strategic direction and had no long-term vision, no re-evaluation of the WorldCom’s direction and performance targets was undertaken.
Micro environmental factors that affected targets performance over the year have been a combination of the following factors: * The company – Targets marketing managers were not aware of the change in trends in the marketing environment. They were more focused on the product concept of marketing instead of the marketing concept. Target marketing managers were not focus on achieving the overall goals of the company by knowing and satisfying the needs and wants of it consumers * Competitors – To achieve superior performance and sustain a competitive advantage, companies must be aware of who their competitors are. Target did not pay close attention to their main rivals’ Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart offers valuable discount to their customers while still offering brand name and fashionable product.
Question CA1-7: Some argue that having various organizations establish accounting principles is wasteful and inefficient. Rather than mandating accounting rules, each company could voluntarily disclose the type of information it considered important. In addition, if an investor wants additional information, the investor could contact the company and pay to receive the additional information desired. Comment on the appropriateness of this viewpoint. I do not believe that this viewpoint is a good idea.