Reference no: EM133146374

You are a middle manager in a big rising firm called Greenoco, and you were just moved to help another division that recently won the bid to build new and much needed infrastructures for the city.

However, as you review some of the material, you realize to your dismay that your firm only won the bid through fraud over some data as well as a bribe to a city official.

Gripped by doubt, you go over the material over and over, but it isn't a mistake, a fraud was perpetrated and a bribe was given. Worst, it does not seem to be the first time, as those now appear to be practices that have had multiple echoes in past bids. After attempting to discuss the subject with your previous supervisor, you are told in no uncertain terms to drop it.

At this point, you are wondering if you should blow the whistle on your firm. The thing is, you are not even sure that the public would really care or was really harmed by some fudged data in a bid process. And whether something comes out of it or not, going public would undoubtedly jeopardize your career both in your current firm and in future firms, for nobody likes someone who betrays one's employer. In addition, although your previous supervisor was a bit rude, going public would not so much affect him, a person unrelated to that bid, but would expose other colleagues to criminal charges, including some colleagues with whom you have had a deep relationship and friendships for years.

Furthermore, even without any criminal pursuits or public outcry, the sudden loss of that particular bid would automatically lead to many layoffs in the division, and these workers and their families would suffer. You also realize that after going public, the bid would then certainly go to one of two rival companies, which themselves have a history of shady dealings in past bids. And besides, you know for a fact that the first one, Brownoco, would not operate in the same environmentally conscious way as your own firm, especially toward animal life, while the second one, Patriarco, pays women equally but exhibits reprehensible gender practices and harassment of female employees.

In many ways, the change of firm following a whistleblowing scandal would be detrimental for the city on many levels beyond costs.

As you review all these factors, you start thinking that perhaps you could simply contact the police anonymously about the city official who takes bribes, without mentioning by whom, and certainly not mentioning your firm's own fraud. That way, the police might still end up catching that crook, without sacrificing yourself, your future, your colleagues and so many good things for the community. Isn't that a good enough compromise in the end?

Explain in three sections what the ethical categories of utilitarianism (1), deontology (2) and virtue ethics (3) would have to say about this case, and especially which features of the case would be salient in their respective decisions. Finally, in a fourth more personal section, explain if YOU would blow the whistle and what leads you to this decision.