CASE STUDY

Enrollment no. : 240763107011

CASE 1

Nayasha is a new employee in a startup that produces LCD displays for large
venues such as shopping malls. Part of her job is to troubleshoot the
malfunctioning these displays. One of the important clients reported that
the display units at their venue were not working properly since 2 months.
Nayasha went to the Site and examined the displays and found out that her
company had sold the units that were from a bad batch. She wanted to tell
this to the site owners as they were very important clients, but if she did
that, it would cost the reputation of her company and her company would
have to install new units at no cost. If she doesn’t inform, the company will
do the replacement for a cost which would be unethical. Nayasha knew that
her manager would like her to take an option which costs her company the
least, but at the same time she wanted to be honest as they were
company’s important customers.

Solution of case:
In Nayasha's situation, the dilemma revolves around balancing ethics with
loyalty to her company’s financial interests. Here's a step-by-step analysis
and solution to the case:

1. Entification of Stakeholders:

• Nayasha: She must decide whether to act in her company's financial

interests or prioritize ethics.
• The Company: Wants to minimize costs but risks damaging its
reputation.
• The Client: Trusts Nayasha’s company and expects reliable service and
Transparency.
2. Honesty and Integrity: It is important for Nayasha to be transparent with
the client about the issue.

Company’s Reputation: If the client discovers the bad batch later on, the
Company’s reputation could be damaged more severely.

Customer Trust: The relationship with the client is long-term, and trust is a
key part of maintaining it.

Financial Impact: Replacing the units at no cost will be an immediate

financial hit for the company, but maintaining the relationship is important
for future business.

3. Possible Courses of Action:

• Tell the Client the Truth:

Nayasha can inform the client that the units were from a bad batch and
offer to replace them at no cost.
Pros: Ethical, maintains long-term trust, enhances the company’s reputation
For honesty.
Cons: Immediate financial cost to the company.

• Inform the Manager First:

Nayasha could speak with her manager about the issue and express her
concerns about long-term trust and reputation.
Pros: Allows the company to make decision together, balancing financial
and reputational concerns.
Cons: The manager may pressure Nayasha to avoid informing the client to
save costs.

• Hide the Truth:

Nayasha could hide the issue from the client and charge for the
replacement.
Pros: Immediate financial benefit for the company.
Cons: Unethical, risks future discovery, could harm the company’s
Reputation.

2
4. Recommended Solution:

The most ethical and sustainable solution is for Nayasha to tell the client the
truth. However, before doing so, she should approach her manager with a
clear explanation of why honesty is in the company’s best long-term
interest. This way, she gives the company a chance to make an ethical
decision while also protecting its financial interests in a way that won't harm
customer trust.

Nayasha should recommend offering the replacement at no cost, but she

could negotiate terms such as offering a discount or future service package
to soften the financial impact.

By framing it as an investment in the client relationship, Nayasha can help

her company see the bigger picture.

Conclusion:
Honesty and transparency are key to maintaining strong client relationships.
By addressing both ethical and business considerations, Nayasha can ensure
the long-term success of her company.

CASE 2

Almost all the developed countries including India now required that motor
vehicles comply with the laws of emission standards, because of the effect
of vehicle emission on atmospheric pollution and global warming. In some
parts of the developing world, fume suppressant Chemicals are added to the
engine so as to suppress the smoke, which is considered the symbol of
pollution. This surprise is black fumes and thereby gives an impression of
reduced emission from the engine; however it is also reported that this
system is not an approved means of motor pollution control as it does not
improve the combustion of the fuel. Thus reduced emission may be an
apparent compliance to the law, but it only gives rise to another possibility
of pollution from the chemicals used as suppressants. The objective of

3
An emission standard is not to suppress smoke but to eradicate harmful
effects of the emission from engines; need for the use of smoke suppressant
is eyewash and morally wrong. In addition, the suppliers of smoke
suppressants have the moral responsibility to check and ensure that the
combustion products of these Chemicals do not further damage the
environment. However, the later moral responsibility can be adopted only
through the ethical principles of these who provide that Technology. They
have to feel duty bound to the society to also examine the morality of their
action and its effect on the environment.

Solution of case:
This case highlights the ethical dilemma surrounding the use of smoke
suppressant chemicals in motor vehicles in developing countries. These
chemicals are used to reduce visible smoke emissions, giving the false
impression that vehicle emissions are in compliance with environmental
standards. However, this practice raises both environmental and moral
concerns, as it does not address the root cause of pollution and may create
new pollutants from the chemicals themselves. Let’s break down the key
issues:

1. Deceptive Compliance to Emission Standards

• Problem: Smoke suppressant chemicals reduce visible emissions but
do not improve fuel combustion. Therefore, the vehicles may appear
to comply with emission standards but continue to emit harmful
pollutants. This leads to deceptive compliance.
• Solution: Compliance should not be based on appearance but on
actual reduction of harmful emissions through improved technology
like cleaner fuel or advanced catalytic converters.

2. Environmental Impact of Suppressants

• Problem: These chemicals might contribute to environmental damage
by introducing new pollutants. While smoke may be reduced, chemical
residues may harm the environment or public health.
• Solution: Comprehensive environmental impact studies should be
conducted to assess the long-term effects of these chemicals. This

4
 Information should be shared with regulatory bodies to establish if
these suppressants are environmentally safe.

3. Moral Responsibility of Suppliers

• Problem: Suppliers of smoke suppressants have an ethical
responsibility to ensure their products do not cause further
environmental harm. Failing to evaluate the impact of these chemicals
is both a failure of ethical duty and professional integrity.
• Solution: Suppliers should adopt transparent ethical principles,
conducting thorough research on their products and ensuring they
align with environmental standards. They must also disclose any
potential side effects of these chemicals to regulators and the public.

4. Ethical Implications of Using Suppressants

• Problem: The use of suppressants can be seen as a “quick fix” or
“eyewash” that does not address the core issue—reducing the
harmful effects of emissions. This is morally questionable as it shifts
focus from genuine solutions like improving engine efficiency and
reducing fossil fuel reliance.
• Solution: Governments and industries should focus on long-term,
sustainable solutions to reduce pollution, such as stricter fuel
regulations, promoting electric vehicles, or improving public
transportation.

Conclusion:
The use of smoke suppressants is ethically flawed and environmentally
irresponsible. True emission control must be achieved through technology
that genuinely reduces harmful pollutants rather than masking them. Both
regulators and suppliers must ensure that emission standards are met in
spirit, not just in appearance.

CASE 3

5
A company recruits a female engineer through an open advertisement and
appoints her at a salary that is much lesser than other male engineers with
similar experience and working with a similar type of job responsibility. The
company can, if challenged, legally justify this action on the grounds that 1)
the offer is in accordance with their policy of open ended scale with no
minimum salary fixed. 2) It is the best they can offer as per their judgment
and 3) the candidate is free to accept of refuse the offer. Apparently, this
may be in keeping with the law but a deeper examination will bring up the
issue of gender discrimination in the salary and role in the company. Morally
the company would be unjust and unfair in thus discriminating between jobs
of similar skill and responsibility depending on the employee’s gender. To
stop such unethical practices in industries, many developed countries (e.g.
USA, UK etc.) Call upon the employer to declare if they are an ‘equal
opportunity employer’ and legal action can be taken against such companies
for discrimination in employment. In fact more and more countries are
adopting ethical legal systems to stop such exploitation in the job market
that harms the weaker section of the society as well as to support equitable
social development.

Solution of case:
This case revolves around the issue of gender discrimination in the
workplace, specifically in companies that unfairly discriminate between jobs
of similar skill and responsibility based on an employee’s gender. The case
calls attention to ethical, legal, and societal aspects of workplace fairness
and equality. Let’s analyze and solve this case step by step:

1. Unethical Discrimination Based on Gender

• Problem: The Company is practicing gender discrimination by offering
different opportunities, wages, or benefits for jobs that require similar
skills and responsibilities, solely based on the employee’s gender.
• Solution: The Company should adopt a strict policy of equal pay for
equal work, irrespective of gender. HR policies need to be restructured
to remove gender bias from hiring, promotion, and compensation
practices.

2. Equal Opportunity Employment

6
 • Problem: The Company is not an “equal opportunity employer,”
meaning it may not be providing equal access to jobs, training, or
promotions based on skill and merit. Instead, it is discriminating based
on gender, which is unfair and unethical.
• Solution: To be compliant with ethical standards, the company should
become an equal opportunity employer. This means ensuring all
employees are treated fairly, without discrimination based on gender,
race, religion, or any other factor unrelated to job performance. The
company should publicize its stance on equality and include anti-
discrimination clauses in its employment contracts.

3. Legal Implications and Consequences

• Problem: In many developed countries (e.g., USA, UK), discriminatory
practices are illegal, and companies can face legal action, penalties, or
lawsuits if they are found guilty of gender discrimination.
• Solution: The Company should familiarize itself with the relevant laws,
such as the Equal Pay Act and anti-discrimination laws, and take steps
to ensure full compliance. If the company operates in countries with
such laws, it should implement practices to prevent any discriminatory
actions. Conducting regular audits on pay equity and HR policies is
crucial to ensure compliance with the law and avoid potential lawsuits.

4. Social and Ethical Responsibilities

• Problem: Discriminatory practices harm not only individual employees
but also the broader societal goal of equitable development. Gender
discrimination perpetuates inequality, keeps marginalized groups at a
disadvantage, and creates a toxic work environment.
• Solution: The Company has a moral responsibility to promote gender
equality and support equitable social development. They should
provide diversity and inclusion training for their employees,
particularly those in leadership positions. This can help create a more
inclusive environment where employees are valued based on their
skills and contributions, rather than their gender.

5. Adopting Ethical and Fair Hiring Practices

7
 • Problem: The Company may not have proper mechanisms in place to
ensure hiring, promotions, and pay are based on merit, rather than
gender bias. This can lead to long-term inequality within the
organization.
• Solution: Implement transparent hiring and promotion practices that
focus on objective criteria such as experience, education, and
performance. Regular reviews of wage structures should be conducted
to ensure that all employees with similar roles and responsibilities
receive equal pay.

Conclusion:
The company must immediately revise its policies to ensure it is an equal
opportunity employer. This involves removing gender discrimination from its
employment practices, complying with anti-discrimination laws, and
fostering a workplace culture that promotes fairness, equity, and inclusivity.
By doing so, the company not only avoids legal action but also contributes to
a more just and equitable society.