CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION

Abstract

Background. Sophisticated ethics games that focus on corporate social responsibility, ethical decision-making and/or moral reasoning are virtually non-existent.

The problem. The ambiguity and controversial nature of ethics as a subject matter make competition and scoring, key to motivating participants, especially difficult to implement.

Approach. CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION attempts to systematically overcome some of the obstacles facing ethics game design through a scoring system intended to encourage critical ethical decision-making and moral reasoning. Structurally, the game aims to balance cohesiveness through its ongoing narrative with flexibility through its modular design.

The game. Participants serve on business oversight committees within three companies loosely modeled after Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo!. The companies face similar problems with their operations in a new Southeast Asian market. Participants explore ethical decision-making and the nature and extent of corporate social responsibility in a global context. The four modules provided here focus on discrimination, corruption, compensation, marketing practices, and privacy.

Practical implications. CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION is a ready-to-use ethics game that can be used either in a single day training format or in a business ethics classroom throughout a semester. Perhaps more importantly, its structure can be adapted to explore ethical decision-making in any context.

Keywords

ambiguity business ethics cohesiveness compensation controversy corporate social responsibility corruption CSR game discrimination ethical decision-making ethics game ethics simulation ethics training flexibility global marketing practices moral reasoning privacy scoring

Basic Data

Instructional objectives:

To reflect and improve upon responsible ethical decision-making practices.

To identify moral distinctions and use them to arrive at principled courses of action.

To increase awareness of the ethical considerations that bear on a business’ activities.

To practice developing corporate policies that balance financial and moral interests

To investigate the relationship between varying local legal conditions and corporate social responsibility.

Simulation objectives: To develop strategies for responding to morally complex situations that sensibly balance obligations to shareholders and other stakeholders – and to do so better than the competition.

Debriefing format: Interactive discussion.

Target audience: Undergraduate and graduate students in Business, Communication, Political Science, and Ethics courses. Managers in corporate training settings.

Suggested Running Time and Sample Schedule: (Adjust as Needed)

09:00	Introduction / break into groups / warm up discussion (15 min.)
09:15	Round 1 Introduction (10 min), Individual Analysis (10 min), Group work (30 minutes), Scoring (10 min)
10:15	Round 1 debrief (20 min)
10:35.	Break (10 minutes)
10:45	Round 2 Introduction (10 min), Individual Analysis (10 min), Group work (30 minutes), Scoring (10 min)
11:45	Round 2 debrief (20 min)
12:05	Lunch Break (55 minutes)
13:00	Round 3 Introduction (15 min), Individual Analysis (10 min), Group work (30 minutes), Scoring (10 min)
14:05	Round 3 debrief (20 min)
14:25	Break (10 minutes)
14:35	Round 4 Introduction (10 min), Group work (30 minutes), Presentations (30 min) Scoring (10 min)
15:55	Break (15 min.) Scores are compiled during this time
16:10	Final debrief and take-aways
17:00	END

Short workshop alternative: Rounds 1, 2, or 3 modules can be used as stand-alone simulation workshops, along supporting introductory forms, and a full debrief that also touches on the CSR topics raised in the round. (estimated running time 110 minutes, which can be broken up between two sessions)

Number of participants required: 12-42. 4-7 per company in three-company “sets”. A second 3-company set can be added if necessary. Participants interact only with others in their set.

Participant Materials included:

Preparatory: Form Prep A – Doodle in Champa (1 per Doodle employee), Form Prep B – Mayoo in Champa (1 per Mayoo employee), Form Prep C – Nanosoft in Champa (1 per Nanosoft employee), Form Prep D (Global companies and global concerns); Form Prep E -Ethical decision-making and moral reasoning: a very brief introduction

Round 1: Form 1A – Confidential communication from Sabine Braun (1 per participant), Form 1B – Individual analysis form (1 per participant), Form 1C – Group analysis form (1-2 per group)

Round 2: Form 2A – Confidential communication from Tanvir Hussein, (1 per participant), Form 2B – Individual analysis form (1 per participant), Form 2C – Group analysis form (1-2 per group).

Round 3: Form 3A – Doodle background of past activities concerning censorship and user information (1 per Doodle employee), Form 3B – Mayoo background of past activities concerning censorship and user information (1 per Mayoo employee), Form 3C – Nanosoft background of past activities concerning censorship and user information (1 per Nanosoft employee), Form 3D – Communication from Norio Armstrong (1 per participant), Form 3E – Communication from Cynthia Liang (1 per participant), Form 3F – Communication from General Ye (1 per participant), Form 3G - Individual Analysis Form (1 per participant), Form 3H – Group Recommendations Form (1-2 per group)

Round 4: Form 4A – Second communication from Norio Armstrong, Form 4B: Models of corporate social responsibility (CSR)

Appendix: Sample Scoring Sheet

Facilitator Materials included: Facilitator guide and debrief suggestions

The actions of multinational corporations have complex global financial, social, political, and moral implications. That such corporations are managed in a manner consistent with their social responsibilities, is of vital importance both to the societies in which they operate and to their shareholders, whose fortunes are influenced by public perception. Compliance education programs aim to train managers and employees to act in accordance with a legally-prudent set of company rules. But, such programs rarely provide employees with genuine ethics training – helping individuals to develop their ethical decision-making skills so that they can apply them in the many day-to-day decisions for which lists of rules provide only minimal guidance. Even rarer are programs that train managers to consider the obligations and limitations of corporate social responsibility. Rarer still, are those that do so within a global context. The few global corporate social responsibility (CSR) simulations in the public domain today focus narrowly on long standing issues, such as bribery (e.g. Bos, Shami, & Naab, 2006; James & Smith, 2007) and labor exploitation. (e.g. Felgendreher et al., 2011) Although attempts have been made to create business ethics games, these have been largely (if not completely) limited to computer-based individual formats. Few, if any, business ethics or CSR games capitalize on the many advantages of group-based simulation activities for investigating the slippery nature of responsible ethical decision-making. CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION, on the other hand, is designed to do precisely this.

CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION is a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) training game composed of a connected set of CSR simulation workshops. Designed to function in a modular game framework, it can easily incorporate additional or alternative modules within its game mechanics. Participants serve as members of a business oversight committee within three companies loosely modeled after Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo!. The four modules provided here focus on CSR issues touching on discrimination, nepotism, corruption, compensation, marketing practices, and information privacy/access. The three companies face similar problems with their operations in a Southeast Asian nation whose market they have recently entered. They can choose to address their challenges alone or in cooperation with willing competitors. Participants explore ethical decision-making and the nature and extent of the responsibilities of corporations in a global context.

As in many real world business ethics cases, we can aspire to no easy and obvious right answers in this simulation. Following Shami, Box, Fort, & Gordon (2014) and Bos et al. (2006), CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION does not present and encourage participants to pursue a “right” course of action. Instead, it emphasizes the process by which participants consider ethical questions, weigh their obligations to various stakeholders, and justify their decisions. Whether approaches that take a moral stance ultimately result in financial rewards is unclear (Teach, Christensen, & Schwartz, 2005). Conflicts often exist between the pursuit of profitability and the meeting of various ethical obligations, the interests of multiple stakeholders, and the significance reasonable people can attach to different values (e.g. privacy vs. security). In addition, such decisions are often made with limited knowledge of potential long-term consequences – along with psychological tendencies or organizational pressures for an overly-optimistic outlook that justifies short-term profits by downplaying negative long-term consequences. The situation is made even more complex when the decision is made in an international context, in which differing cultural traditions, power dynamics, and laws impact what is ethical or how ethical policies can be effectively implemented.

In the debrief phases of the exercise, participants explore ethical decision-making, moral reasoning, the nature and extent of a multinational corporation’s responsibilities in a global context, the moral distinctions they draw between various actions, their understanding of their company’s stakeholders and stakes, and the role of privacy in the contemporary world.

Facilitator Guide

Preparation

1. You should have the following handouts ready:

Form Prep A – Doodle in Champa (1 per Doodle employee)

Form Prep B – Mayoo in Champa (1 per Mayoo employee)

Form Prep C – Nanosoft in Champa (1 per Nanosoft employee)

Form Prep D - Global companies and global concerns (1 per group)

2. If you choose to use the video versions of the communications in Round 3 (or the shorter workshop format), obtain the videos and prepare them for viewing.

3. At the end of each round each group will need to see the other groups’ answers for scoring purposes. In order to get these answers into each group’s hands, pass out two Group Recommendations Form per group each round and ask them to write down their responses twice. If a copy machine is available, then copies can be made instead.

Set-Up

4. Randomly assign participants into three companies of 4-7 participants in each. If the group is larger, consider running two or more simultaneous sets of companies. Place the companies in a way that lowers or minimizes the ability of each company to overhear the conversation of the other companies in its set.

5. Provide visible markings of the location of each company, so that its competitors can easily find it if they want to initiate communication. If you are running more than one set of companies, make sure that the markings distinguish which set the company belongs to (e.g. A sign that reads “Doodle”).

Warm Up Group Discussion

6. Announce: “Our focus today will be on the global responsibilities of IT giants, such as Apple, Google, and Facebook. To help us get started I would like each group to answer a few questions together. You’ll have 15 minutes”

7. Pass out Form Prep D - Global companies and global concerns (1 per group)

Introduction to Simulation

8. Announce: “In today’s simulation exercise you will be playing the role of members of a Business Practices Oversight Committee for your company. The committee advises the management and the board of directors about sensitive business practices, and you have been called together today to provide such advice. What makes such practices sensitive are their ethical dimensions, so you will be provided with a brief guide to ethical decision making. Also, given the way things are going in Champa right now, I expect that you’ll be contacted by our people there. So, I’ve put together a brief background information packet on our operations in Champa to help you prepare. Please read it carefully, and remember that these are confidential communications.

9. Pass out the company-specific preparatory packets (Forms Prep A-C) and Form Prep – E: Ethical decision-making and moral reasoning. Allow participants 5-10 minutes to review the information.

Round 1

10. Announce: “It looks like we have our first request for advice. Just as I predicted, it’s from Champa. More specifically, from HR Director Sabine Braun in Champa. I’ll forward you the communication now.”

11. Pass out Form 1A – Confidential communication from Sabine Braun (1 per participant) and Form 1B – Individual analysis form (1 per participant).

12. Announce: “Your first task for today is to make an initial analysis of the situation at hand in order to prepare for your committee meeting. This is an individual task, so please keep your thoughts to yourself for now. You will have plenty of time to discuss them in your meeting. You have 10 minutes.”

13. Announce: “At this time I would like you to discuss the situation by sharing your ideas with the other members of your committee. Explain the rationale for any tentative decisions you made in your individual analysis, articulate the beliefs and principles that led you to those decisions, and identify the values they promote. Ask yourself, can they be satisfactorily justified to all of your stakeholders? We would like your recommendations to be the product of a carefully reached group consensus attained through a critical discussion of each other’s ideas, rather than a vote.” Please write your final group recommendations on the Group Recommendation form. If you would like, you may reach out to and meet with your competitors, which are facing similar problems. You have 30 minutes.” Pass out Form 1C - Group Recommendations Form (1-2 per group)

14. Announce, “You have concluded your meeting. Please submit your Round 1 Group Recommendations Form(s) to your facilitator. Make sure to write your group name on it.”

15. Pass out to each group a completed group recommendations form belonging to each of its competitors and two scoring sheets.

16. Announce: “You will now score your competitors’ responses as a group. Please follow the instructions on the scoring sheet. Make sure to write in the round and company you are evaluating, as well as your own company’s name.”

17. Collect scoring sheets and begin debrief.

18. Announce 10 minute break

Round 2

Repeat steps 10-18. The initial announcement should be: “You have another request for advice from Champa. This time, it’s from Tanvir Hussein. He’s the Senior Director at Vijaya – our top person in there. I’ll send it your way.”

The materials needed for this round are: Form 2A – Confidential communication from Tanvir Hussein, (1 per participant), Form 2B – Individual analysis form (1 per participant), Form 2C – Group analysis form (1-2 per group).

Round 3

19. Announce: “Norio Armstrong, Sr. Vice President of Global Communications & Public Affairs has called on your committee today to advise on an urgent matter with global ramifications for your company. He sent you this urgent communication regarding demands that our company and its main competitors have received from the government of Champa.” Distribute Form 3D.

20. Pass out Forms 3A, 3B, & 3C: Company-specific background of past activities concerning censorship and user information. (1 per employee) Pass out Form 3G: Individual Analysis FormAnnounce: “Mr. Armstrong would like you to individually make an initial analysis of the situation in preparation for your committee meeting. His staff put together a preparatory packet for you. Please review it before making your initial analysis. You have 15 minutes.”

21. After 10 minutes announce: “We have just received two communications addressed to your committee, which Mr. Armstrong would like you to watch immediately. The first is from Cynthia Liang, Amnesty International’s Director for East Asian Affairs. The second is from General Ye, Interior Minister of the Republic of Champa.” Pass out Forms 3E, and 3F (1 per participant). Pass out Form 3H: Group Recommendations Form (1-2 per group)

Repeat steps 13-18

Round 4

22. Announce: “It looks like we have another confidential communication for you from Mr. Armstrong. It’s marked ‘extremely urgent’! Here it is.”

23. Pass out Form 4A: Second Communication from Norio Armstrong, and Form 4B: Four Models of Corporate social responsibility (CSR) (1 per participant)

24. Announce: “I will prepare the briefing room for you. Meanwhile, you have 30 minutes to prepare your presentation, which cannot exceed 5 minutes in length. Good luck!”

25. Randomly determine the order of the presenting groups. Arrange presentation space if needed.

26. Announce: “You will now use your presentations to explain your company’s guiding principles to the press. As each company presents, the members of the other companies will function as reporters. Your job will be to ask our presenters the tough questions: to demand clarifications where you find ambiguities and justifications for policies you believe the presentation fails to adequately defend.

21. Announce: “You will now score the success of your competitors’ presentations in response to the leak. Use the three initial requirements posed by Mr. Armstrong as guidelines. Consider the group’s responses to reporters as a fourth question. Make sure to write in the round and company you are evaluating, as well as your own company’s name. Finally, I would also like you to write down a one-sentence description of the type of character each of your competitors displayed today”

22. Collect scoring sheets. Announce 15 minute break. Compile scores from all rounds.

23. Begin final debrief and announce winner.

Debrief Suggestions

The type of debrief most suitable for the different parts of CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION would depend on how it’s played. If the game is run in a one-day format as suggested by the sample schedule, then the time available for debriefs after each round is approximately 20 minutes, along with a longer final debrief. If, on the other hand, the game is run over several days (e.g. over several class sessions throughout a semester) time may permit considerably longer debriefs. Such a longer format would allow more time to discuss the specific topics the companies consider each round (e.g. gender discrimination or marketing to the vulnerable), particularly in relation to class lectures and reading materials. The same would go for debriefs accompanying any of the scenarios presented here as stand-alone simulation workshops. I will limit to my suggestions here to the one-day format suggested above. A natural focus for this format would be on the process of ethical decision-making and the general question of the extent of corporate responsibility).

Round 1 debrief – focus on moral awareness (relevant facts, stakeholders, stakes, options)

What facts did you see as most central to your decision?

Who has a stake in your decision and what do they have at stake?

What ethical issues, if any, played a role in your group’s deliberations about what to do?

Does your response address the interests of all stakeholders?

Which groups of stakeholders, if any, are most likely to object to your decisions? How would you justify your decision to them?

Did you identify and weigh all of your options before making your decision? Would you gain anything by doing so? Did any of you come up with interesting non-obvious options?

Did thinking about the situation as a group affect (raise, lower, neither) your awareness of the ethical complexities of the decisions you made in this round?

You and your competitors found yourself facing the same difficult decision. Did you decide to cooperate with your competitors in order to resolve the problem? Why or why not?

Round 2 debrief – focus on moral reasoning (weighing and justifying actions in light of consequences and principles)

Which of the policies you were asked about most troubled you and why? Would you say you were more troubled by the potential consequences of these policies or by their violation of an important moral rule?

Take a look at the decisions made by the other companies in this simulation round. Do you find any decisions puzzling or morally objectionable? If so, why? (Ask the company in question to explain its reasoning)

Consider the justifications you had for your decisions. Did you use any general principles to justify your decisions today? (e.g., greatest good for the greatest number or one should not knowingly harm others)

Did you see benefits to weighing your options as a group, rather than on your own? Did the group change your mind about anything?

Round 3 debrief – focus on strategizing for effective ethical action, and on the relationship between morality, norms, and laws

It is difficult to make decisions in such cases that will please everyone and unhappy stakeholders can make implementing your decisions difficult. What potential practical challenges did you foresee to carrying out any of your actions effectively? What strategies did you consider for overcoming these obstacles?

How did considering your varied activities and user-expectations in China, India, and the United States affect your decision-process in Champa?

Did it make a difference to your decisions that the Champese government was not democratically elected?

Do you agree with General Ye that the local morality of Champa is different than your own western morality, or do you think that at least some moral principles are universal?

What does it mean for a company to be ethical when it operates in multiple nations with differences in cultural norms, traditions, and laws?

Final debrief – focus on corporate social responsibility, company character, and moral courage

Reveal scoring: round by round and totals. Announce winner.

Consider your role as judges today. Each round you evaluated your competitors’ responses. Did you draw any general lessons about what makes for a good response to an ethical challenge from that experience?

You were introduced to four very different models today about the responsibilities of businesses. The winning team’s presentation reflected a commitment to the ___ model. Did they get it right? Which model do you think best represents those responsibilities and why?

Considering all of the decisions you’ve made today, what specifically would you say businesses are and are not responsible for?

Moral courage is the courage to do what you believe is right. Was doing the right thing either in response to General Ye’s request or to the leak difficult?

Did your company’s past actions influence or restrict your decision in some way? Are you acting in line with your past actions or charting a new direction?

What role did concerns about your company’s “character” or brand play in your decision? Were perceptions about that character important to you, or the character itself?

How would you describe the type of character your company displayed in today’s simulation? (Observe how these descriptions compare those drafted by competitors)

Do companies need a consistent global policy about how to deal with local legal demands more generally? What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a policy?

Integrity is often mentioned as an important asset for a business or a business professional. How would you define “integrity”? What would it mean or take for a multinational company to have “integrity”?

The companies you advised today play (or can play) an important leadership role in today’s world. Did your company play a positive leadership role today? How?

Follow Up

If the group includes students, the facilitator can assign pre-exercise readings and/or a follow-up assignment. I suggest a follow-up assignment that focuses on the difficult task of clearly communicating the moral aspect of the companies’ decisions in one of the rounds. For example, asking participants to compose a reply to General Ye that clearly articulates and justifies their company’s decisions.

Conclusion

Ethics and CSR simulation games face three major challenges. The first is to create a situation in which participants feel comfortable, interested, and sufficiently informed in order to approach an ethical problem critically and sincerely. The second is to balance adequate situational structures with a realistic range of action-options. The third is to assess success in a realistic and acceptable manner. CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION aims to meet the first of these challenges by focusing on a set of ethical problems that affects virtually every participant, and which participants are likely to have already thought about to some degree. It aims to meet the second challenge by presenting participants with open-ended scenarios, restricted by historical precedence and grounded in the complex realities faced by companies they are likely well familiar with and the reactions of users such as themselves. Finally, it aims to meet the third by focusing on responsible ethical decision making, rather than moral rightness of actions. Moreover, it does this by integrating scoring, judging, and debrief discussions in a manner designed to teach and reinforce a step-by-step process for responsible ethical decision-making.

Participants’ Materials

Form Prep-A: Doodle in Champa

Services in Champa: Search engine, social media, email, and blogging software services. These are hosted on (expensive) servers in Vijaya, Champa’s capital.

Local staff: Doodle currently has a central office in Vijaya that employees approximately 200 people in sales, marketing, IT, management, and office support. Plans for regional sales offices in other Champese cities are currently in the works.

Market share:

	Search Services	Email	Social Media (inc. video)	Blogging services
Nanosoft	10%	50%	20%	60%
Mayoo	20%	35%	25%	30%
Doodle	70%	15%	55%	10%

No significant local competition exists and it would take approximately a year for any potential new competitors to provide these services in Champa.

Background on Champa:

France conquered Champa in 1886 and incorporated it into French Indochina until 1948, when it won its independence. In 1982 General Duong orchestrated a military coup, and has dominated the government since.

An ethnic Thuc, Doung has promoted the interests of the Thucs, who comprise about 30% of the population and practice a form of Mahayana Buddhism. They have become wealthy and powerful under his rule to the resentment of Champa’s ethnic Kieps, who comprise about 60% of the population and practice a form of Theravada Buddhism.

Tensions are high between the Thucs and Kieps and occasionally flare into episodes of mob violence. In order to avoid such conflicts, Champa’s laws restrict speech that is “religiously offensive” or insults modern Champa’s founder and Thuc hero, Ly Van Lang.

Champa’s laws provide its government with broad and loosely defined powers. It uses these to actively suppress political dissent and democracy activism.

Ne Manu is a largely Kiep organization. It describes itself as an indigenous environmentalist movement. The government describes it as a terrorist organization.

Form Prep-B: Mayoo in Champa

Services in Champa: Search engine, social media, email, and blogging software services. These are hosted on (expensive) servers in Vijaya, Champa’s capital.

Local staff: Mayoo currently has a central office in Vijaya that employees approximately 200 people in sales, marketing, IT, management, and office support. Plans for regional sales offices in other Champese cities are currently in the works.

Market share:

	Search Services	Email	Social Media (inc. video)	Blogging services
Nanosoft	10%	50%	20%	60%
Mayoo	20%	35%	25%	30%
Doodle	70%	15%	55%	10%

No significant local competition exists and it would take approximately a year for any potential new competitors to provide these services in Champa.

Background on Champa:

Tension are high between the Thucs and Kieps and occasionally flare into episodes of mob violence. In order to avoid such conflicts, Champa’s laws restrict speech that is “religiously offensive” or insults modern Champa’s founder and Thuc hero, Ly Van Lang.

Champa’s laws provide its government with broad and loosely defined powers. It uses these to actively suppress political dissent and democracy activism.

Ne Manu is a largely Kiep organization. It describes itself as an indigenous environmentalist movement. The government describes it as a terrorist organization.

Form Prep-C: Nanosoft in Champa

Services in Champa: Search engine, social media, email, and blogging software services. These are hosted on (expensive) servers in Vijaya, Champa’s capital.

Local staff: Nanosoft currently has a central office in Vijaya that employs approximately 200 people in sales, marketing, software and hardware specialists, management, and office support. Plans for regional sales offices in other Champese cities are currently in the works.

Market share:

	Search Services	Email	Social Media (inc. video)	Blogging services
Nanosoft	10%	50%	20%	60%
Mayoo	20%	35%	25%	30%
Doodle	70%	15%	55%	10%

No significant local competition exists and it would take approximately a year for any potential new competitors to provide these services in Champa.

Background on Champa:

Champa’s laws provide its government with broad and loosely defined powers. It uses these to actively suppress political dissent and democracy activism.

Ne Manu is an active indigenous environmentalist movement in Champa. The government describes it as a terrorist organization.

Form Prep-D: Global Companies & Global Concerns

As users of these companies’ products or services, are you personally concerned about ethical issues?

Who has a stake in the policies such companies pursue? What do they have at stake?

What do you see as the 5 most important ethical issues such companies face today as they operate offices, serve users, and seek advertisers in countries all over the world?

Form Prep-E: Ethical Decision-Making and Moral Reasoning: A Very Brief Introduction

Responsible Ethical Decision-Making

The aim of this global business ethics/CSR simulation is not to lead participants to correct answers to ethical problems, but to help them improve upon the skills involved in responsible and effective ethical decision-making. The process can be broken down into step-by-step components as follows:

Step 1: Identifying the (a) relevant facts that bear on the decision, (b) its stakeholders (those potentially impacted by the decision) and what each has at stake, and (c) the available options (obvious and not) that one must choose between.

Step 2: Identifying the various types of moral considerations presented by the situation and using moral reasoning to determine what to do. That is, thinking about and offering reasons as to why a certain course of action is morally preferable to alternative courses of action. This involves a set of familiar skills that can be improved with practice and attention. Some aspects of good moral reasoning are:

Noting significant features in a case that morally distinguishes it from another.

Making use of general principles that apply to a range of cases with similar moral features to argue about a specific case. For example, one might argue that because a business should always obey local governments [general principle], it should turn over the requested user information [specific case].

Clarifying central moral concepts (e.g. privacy) in order to better illuminate moral distinctions or the proper exercise of a general principle.

Step 3: Effective implementation: Responsible ethical decision making concerns actions to be performed in the “real world” – a complicated context of bureaucratic limitations, social norms, company policies, human emotions, personal loyalties, competing power dynamics, etc. Given this, the most ethical decision you can take is one can that you can expect to carry out with sufficient success. This requires that you identify potential practical obstacles that may stand in the way of your recommended course of action and formulate strategies for tackling these obstacles effectively.

NOTE: Your performance as a group today in addressing ethically complex situations will be scored in accordance with your successful execution of each of the above steps. Consider them carefully when formulating your responses.

Making Business Decisions Through A Moral Lens

As an employee of your respective company advising upper management, you should approach your task as an agent of that company – someone charged with the responsibility to make decisions that are good for the company. That said, it is a matter of some dispute what is good for a company and what it is exactly that you are responsible for. Clearly, you have a responsibility to operate in the interests of your shareholders/investors/owners. Most business ethicists believe that you also have a responsibility to look out for the interests of other stakeholders (those potentially impacted by the decision), such as your employees, customers, suppliers, the communities in which you operate, and the environment.

As you weigh the options your company faces, it is recommended that you view your actions through an ethical, rather than economic, lens. You have a moral responsibility to generate profit for your company’s shareholders. Yet, maximizing profit for shareholders can sometimes conflict with responsibilities you may have to your other stakeholders. Your decisions should strive to resolve these conflicts – ideally by finding a proper balance between these various responsibilities.

Form 1A – Confidential Communication from Sabine Braun, Human Resources Director of the Vijaya office in Champa

Hello,

This is confidential, right? Ok. I’m kind of nervous. I’ve never done something like this before. I need advice. I’m not sure what to do. I’m counting on this communication remaining confidential as promised.

My name is Sabine Braun. I’ve been with the company for about 10 years now. I started in our Berlin office and was then a part of the team that started operations in Buena Aires. After the success of Buena Aires I was asked to direct Human Resources in our new operations in Champa, whose economy has recently been opened to the world. But… things have been difficult in ways I didn’t really expect.

Let me try to outline my concerns to you more specifically. I should also let you know that I understand that my counter-parts at our two major competitors are struggling with similar problems.

First, there’s the ethnic tension. As you may know, Champa is divided ethnically into two rival camps – the Thucs and the Kieps. This is a majority-Kiep area, but most of our employees are Thucs. This is for two reasons, both of which trouble me. One is that the Thucs are in power and benefit from the privileges of power: better education, more access to technology, and connections to people in power. If you want to get a good job out here you need to know someone. And the way you know someone is through your connections – typically your family connections. So, Thucs are much more likely to get that entry level position that allows them to built job experience than Kieps. Many of our employees do not speak good English, doubly so for their references. So, we rely on our local HR manager to find us good personnel. But that means that all hiring goes through him – he’s a Thuc, himself – and he can tell us anything he wants as I far as I know. I’m not accusing him of racism, but I can’t help but think something is going on. And then there’s the fact that the majority of major business owners (our potential advertisers) are Thucs and given this ethnic situation, Thuc sales people are probably more likely to be effective. I don’t know… I’m just uncomfortable about the whole thing.

Another troubling reason our employees are mostly Thuc may be that whenever Kieps do make it through our hiring process, they’re then a minority in the office that are picked on. Little things – it’s hard for me to tell. Language. It seems intimidating to me (though I don’t know if anyone here sees it that way) and at the same time I get the feeling that if this was a Kiep dominated office, the reverse would happen. These rivalries are old and I’m an outsider. When I talk to the Kiep workers they’re very polite and they tell me that they’re happy. But I’m not sure that I trust them. Maybe they just don’t want to make trouble for themselves.

Secondly, there’s the nepotism and corruption. People are not very shy about it here. In fact, they expect it. We fired one guy earlier this week because he wasn’t doing much more than hitting on the women here. Then we got a call from our largest advertiser yesterday, essentially telling us that if we want to keep their business we need to hire him back. This morning we got an even more interesting proposal. A government minister essentially told me that he has power over the nation’s (monopolistic) state-owned internet provider and can set us up as a “favored” customers. Essentially, our data services would operate up 33% faster than our competitors – giving us a very nice advantage over them. But, we need to hire his son as a “director of something or other” – its up to us. We don’t even have to give him any specific responsibilities, just a salary about equal to my own.

Thirdly, there are the gender issues. Let me tell you, it’s not easy managing things here as a woman: Men here are not used to taking orders from women and sexual slavery flourishes in this part of the world. Of course, it helps that I’m also a foreigner - we’re entitled to our foreigner ways. But, things sure would be easier if I was a man here. I think that James, my deputy director, has been gunning for my job by making all the connections I have trouble making as a woman. He goes out with the local bosses – all of them men – partying all night with women I assume are prostitutes. He’s gotten really chummy with them. Meanwhile, I feel a wall of awkward, but polite distance, from them. I consider myself a fun social gal. I’ve never had problem networking before and it’s not officially part of my job – but in a nation where laws are always subject to an official’s interpretation and who you know really matters, it’s very important. It’s not me - is it?

And speaking of gender, I’m also deeply disturbed by the fact that our employees are quite gender-stratified. Women are hired to do customer service and reception work, while the men are given all the real responsibility and opportunities. Maybe this reflects a bias on behalf of our HR manager. Maybe it reflects existing gender inequalities – women certainly have less opportunities to gain the sort of skills and experience for jobs with our company. Maybe both. Should we do something about this?

Finally, there’s this new obsession with salaries. Somebody leaked the salary and benefits some of our international workers get to our Champese staff, who get paid local rates. This has created some grumblings and an impassioned debate in our office about fairness in wages. It seems that some of the locals hold global companies like our own to greater moral responsibility than local companies in this regard. While they accept that local companies, typically family owned and financed, will pay employees as little as the market will bear, they seem to expect more from rich western companies, such as our own.

A popular past time seems to be comparing the range of salaries across our local office and debating both the underlying rationale and merit of our employee compensation policies. Some say that the employee’s contribution to the bottom line should be the sole criteria. Others, say that what we owe our shareholders is to pay as little as possible for as good a service we can get from them. Yet others, point to further aspects: personal need, familial need related to their social role, the company’s ability to pay, what we pay others with similar skills, etc. They say they want a fair wage. I hope they don’t know how much I make! I’m not sure if it’s fair or not, but I’m pretty sure I don’t want it cut – nor for them to know what it is. But, can I justify what I make in a way that’s sensible and that they would judge as fair? I’m really not sure.

I need advice.

Form 1B – Individual Analysis Form

Should Sabine do anything about her office’s ethnic composition or company culture? If so, what?

How should Sabine reply to the government minister and what, if anything, should she do about the common practice of nepotism more generally?

Should our company do something about the gender stratification of its employees in Champa?

Assume our company pays Sabine 20 times more than her average local employee with equal benefits. What constitutes fair employee compensation and what would justify such a dramatic salary differential?

What should Sabine, or our company, do about the disadvantages a female executive has networking with local businessmen in Champa and other patriarchal cultures?

Form 1C – Group Analysis Form

Group: ___________________

Should Sabine do anything about her office’s ethnic composition or company culture? If so, what?

How should Sabine reply to the government minister and what, if anything, should she do about nepotism more generally?

Should our company do something about gender stratification among its employees in Champa?

Assume our company pays Sabine 20 times more than her average local employee (along with substantially better benefits). What constitutes fair employee compensation and what would justify such a dramatic salary differential?

What should Sabine, or our company, do about the disadvantages a female executive has networking with local businessmen in Champa and other patriarchal cultures?

Form 2A – Confidential Communication from Tanvir Hussein, Senior Director, Vijaya, Champa

Hi there.

I’m Tanvir Hussein. I head up our operations in Champa.

I’m struggling with some problems that my sales and marketing team need me to resolve quickly. They involve an ethical dimension I’m not quite sure how to deal with. Sabine Braun, our HR director, recommended that I try to get advice from your committee. And that it would be kept confidential…

I think the easiest way to tell you about the questions I need advice on is by sending you transcripts from a meeting I had this morning with JP Phuncao, our Director of Sales & marketing, and Grace Roberts, our Director of Public Relations. I list the decisions I need to make near the end of the transcript – they’re what I want your advice about.

I thank you for your help and look forward to any advice you have for me.

Transcripts: Vijaya Office, Champa – This Morning

JP:

Thanks for seeing us Tanvir. Grace and I are at an impasse over some of the parameters of our sales and marketing activities in Champa. We need to know how to proceed as soon as possible. The way I see it, as long as we wait on this, the more we lose money as a company and the more me and my people will lose money on sales commissions!

Grace:

First of all, not making more money is not the same as losing money. Our company is doing fine in Champa.

JP:

Choosing not to make more money is the same as choosing to make less money. Sure, we can play it safe, the way Grace wants. What we’ll get from that will be less sales, lower profits, and smaller market shares. I call that losing money Tanvir!

Tanvir:

Ok… well, lets hear it. What’s the problem?

Grace:

To put it simply. JP wants to take advantage of Champa’s lax marketing laws by using tactics that frankly make me uncomfortable. I find them morally troubling and am concerned about how they might reflect on our corporate image

JP:

Are they illegal? No. Are some of them aggressive? Maybe. But they’re what we need to get ahead here! Will they effect our corporate image? Well, that’s her job, but I don’t see why making money for our shareholders within the laws of the countries in which we operate would give us a bad image. And if our competitors use these first and we get left behind – well, that might be much worse –for our image, company, and jobs.

Tanvir:

Hmmmm…. So what do you have in mind JP? Give me the specifics.

JP:

You got it. Let me start by saying that our sales and marketing activities in Champa are essentially limited only by three restrictions. One: No fraud. Two: No speech offending the ruling party or religious groups - and no pornography. Three: No promotion of illegal activities. That’s about it. As long as we don’t violate these restrictions, we’re playing by the rules. Now, that gives us much more room to work with then in North America or Europe. My staff and I have been talking about how to take advantage of the situation – and, as I understand, so have our two competitors…

Tanvir:

I won’t ask you how you got that information JP, but I’m listening.

JP:

Let me start by saying that I think it’s important for us to keep in mind that Champa is a resource-rich developing country that doesn’t yet have a lot of major service industries. That said, we are in talks with several well-funded organizations that are quite interested in using our services to connect with potential customers. Most of these want to market products that are admittedly potentially harmful to their users. Specifically, gambling, tobacco, and alcohol – the fun stuff!

Grace:

In a country with a notoriously bad gambling problem, high levels of smoking and alcohol addiction, and no restrictions on the sale of cigarettes and alcohol to minors?!

JP:

Yep. It’s a developing nation in Southeast Asia… It’s not our job to fix it. As its economy continues to expand, we’ll be seeing greater demands for a diversity of consumer goods. But for now, if you’re looking at who is advertising in Champa, these are major players – and you see their ads everywhere. We ignore their business at our own peril.

Grace:

Just to make it clear, Tanvir. I’m not talking about fixing Champa’s problems, I’m talking about not helping to perpetuate them…

JP:

So you say! And I say that they can make up their own minds and have a government that can make laws to restrict commerce in ways they think are appropriate for them. They don’t need you and your western values to take care of them.

Tanvir:

Ok. Is that it?

JP:

Three more things we need you to decide on. Here’s the first: One legitimate major local industry we have been successful in attracting has been the garment industry – clothes made in Champa by Champese and for the Champese market.

Grace:

By companies that use child labor Tanvir!

JP:

Possibly. But look at the context. It’s common here for minors to work to help support their families. In fact, their families often depend on them. Many families can’t afford more than a few years of schooling for their kids, who then enter the workforce. It’s obviously not the best situation, but it’s the way it is. Over time the situation will improve, as it has in other developing nations. Again, it’s not our job to fix it. If you want to help – help the local companies that employee these kids to grow, which will hopefully create more local employment, higher standard of living, and enable more families to pay for their kid’s schooling.

Grace:

That’s a very optimistic and self-serving way of looking at it… Or we can not help legitimize those businesses, making it harder for them to employ minors, and supporting social pressures for changing manufacturing practices or modernizing the educational system in Champa.

JP:

Now that’s just wishful thinking. Things will get better if we just give it time and don’t interfere. We have to deal with the local market as it is. And yes, it is my job to serve our company and its shareholders.

Tanvir:

How young are we talking about? 14? 12? 8?

JP:

Probably as young as 12-13.

Grace:

Children!

JP:

Depends on your perspective. You’re bringing high western expectations into it. They’re helping to support their families and school is not an option for them. Without these jobs, neither they nor their families would be better off. It’s all relative. More importantly, we’re not talking about employing minors, we’re talking about allowing companies that do to advertise with us.

Grace:

Yes, we’re only talking about whether to help companies that exploit young children for profit…

JP:

There are two other things Grace is “uncomfortable” with. May I go on?

Tanvir:

Let’s hear them.

JP:

We have a lot of interest from companies that want to use our nuanced knowledge of our users for targeted marketing campaigns. Grace thinks this is morally problematic. My perspective is that my job is to sell legal ad space, not to judge the ethics of every marketing campaign companies choose to use that ad space for.

Grace:

We’re dealing here with a largely uneducated population and potentially unscrupulous marketers. We do have some responsibility to make sure that our users are not taken advantage of.

JP:

No. We shouldn’t take advantage of our users or clients, but this takes it too far. Our advertisers offer products and services and any transaction they make with our users occurs on their own websites. It’s not our place to stand between a consenting seller and buyer.

Grace:

Tanvir, let’s talk specifics – companies that want to target children. Here are the three types of marketing tactics that JP wants to allow advertisers to use that I have trouble with:

First of all, “Pester power” campaigns that target children as young as 3, designed to make them nag their parents for products. They work, but they create family conflict. How would you feel if someone was using vast resources to manipulate your children into not taking “no” for an answer?

Secondly, campaigns that again target children and do so in a way that tries to take advantage of their inexperience and lack of cognitive development – including the inability to distinguish between commercial and non-commercial speech.

And finally, JP wants to allow tobacco and alcohol companies to target teenagers – mostly building brand loyalty – through our services.

The first two are allowed in the US, but not in Europe, as you know. The third is illegal in both the US and Europe. But, all are technically legal in Champa. Mr. Phun wants to take advantage of that fact, and I appreciate that, but just because they’re legal doesn’t mean that we should allow them. We should draw the line somewhere with our advertisers – and just staying within the law isn’t enough.

JP:

Again, this is not our responsibility. Seriously Tanvir – the first two tactics she’s talking here are ones we allow in almost all of our markets! Can we get on with this?

Tanvir:

(sigh) yes… let’s hear the rest of it.

JP:

The last one specifically tackles our current situation in Champa as a relatively new industry. Brand loyalty in our sector is currently very fluid. Our researchers show that the Champese lack strong brand loyalty to any of the services that we and our competitors offer, and are quite ready to switch – if they feel doing so is in their interest. I want to hire locals to covertly function as social media shills promoting our products and services through both our and our competitors’ social media platforms. They would tout the superiority of our services over those of our competitors and defend our image against any detractors.

Grace:

We’re better than that. We can let the quality of our services and satisfied users speak for themselves. If something like this gets out it wouldn’t look good at all. And we might be starting a shill-war with our competitors.

JP:

Or maybe that war has already been started and we’re losing business because we’re not protecting our reputation. What’s wrong with protecting our reputation? I appreciate Grace’s good intentions, but they’re out of touch with the reality of running a smart business in Champa.

Tanvir:

Okay, so let me see if I got your central questions:

Should we accept ads for potentially harmful products, such as gambling, tobacco, and alcohol? If so, should we place any limitations on those ads? If so, what sort of limitations?

Should we accept ads from companies that probably use some child labor – which is normal practice here?

Under what conditions, if any, should we allow companies to engage in marketing campaigns that target children by: (a) taking advantage of their naiveté; (b) using pester power techniques; and (c) building brand loyalty to harmful products whose harms they probably don’t understand.

Should we hire local personnel to promote and protect the reputation of our services through both our and our competitors’ social media platforms in Champa? If so, what restrictions, if any, should we place on their behavior?

All of these would be legal in Champa. And JP, you’re telling me that our competitors are also considering these tactics and may or may not have began to implement some of them.

JP:

Yes. That seems to cover it. And, of course, we need to decide on the parameters we’re working with ASAP, so that my people can start thinking about specifics.

Grace:

And we need to consider this in both a local and global context. We want to succeed in Champa – that’s why we’re here. But we’re also a global brand with international interests.

Tanvir:

Well, all right. I’ll need to talk with the folks at headquarters about this. I’ll get back to you as soon as I can.

Form 2B – Individual Analysis Form

Should we accept ads for potentially harmful products, such as gambling, tobacco, and alcohol? If so, should we place any limitations on those ads? If so, what sort of limitations?

Should we accept ads from companies that probably use some child labor – which is normal practice here?

Under what conditions, if any, should we allow companies to engage in marketing campaigns that target children by: (a) taking advantage of their naiveté? (b) using pester power techniques?; and (c) building brand loyalty to products whose harms they probably don’t understand?

Form 2C – Group Recommendations Form

Group: ___________________

Should we accept ads for potentially harmful products, such as gambling, tobacco, and alcohol? If so, should we place any limitations on those ads? If so, what sort of limitations?

Should we accept ads from companies that probably use some child labor – which is normal practice here?

Form 3A – Doodle Background Of Past Activities Concerning Censorship And User Information

China

Guided by its mantra, “Be Good!,” Doodle thought hard before finally releasing a Chinese search service in 2006, censoring its results to comply with Beijing’s strict limits, concluding that was better than not offering any regularly accessible service at all.

In 2010, Doodle, Mayoo, Nanosoft, email accounts were hacked. Doodle publically named the Chinese government as the culprit and claimed it hacked email accounts of human rights advocates and stole intellectual property. In response to these attacks, Doodle switched search services to its Hong Kong servers and declared that it would no longer cooperate with Chinese censors.

While the company continued to operate on the Chinese mainland and its search engine and email services were available from the mainland, they became more difficult to connect to. Its share of the web search market fell from 36% in 2009 to 17% in 2011.

As the government blocked undesired websites from access through Doodle, Doodle responded in June 2012 with a warning label for blocked links. Within 24 hours the Chinese government managed to block the warning, and a 6-month technological conflict between the two began. In January 2013, Doodle gave up on the effort.

Doodle’s search and social media platform continue to operate in China, though they have been blocked several times, including for an extended period in October 2007. It’s video, images, blogging, and web-site creation sites have been blocked in China since 2009.

India

While India’s 1.2 billion citizens have the right to free speech, that right is exercised within a volatile mix of religious, ethnic and caste politics and a history of mob violence.

India’s constitution gives its government the ability to reasonably restrict speech for such purposes as maintaining “public order, decency or morality.” Web companies are expected to help it enforce those standards online.

In July 2012 violence erupted in the Indian state of Assam between indigenous Bodos and Muslims. Government agencies claimed hateful and false content was spread through social media in order to fan tensions and create fear, resulting in a mass exodus of migrants out of the northeast of the country. It asked Doodle, Mayoo and Nanosoft to remove offending materials, and demanded from them the identities of those who posted the offending materials.

All three companies largely complied with the removal requests, but refused to disclose the identities of the offending material to the Indian government.

Although the official reasons for greater governmental control of the web in India were national security and piracy, these accounted for a very small percentage of the removal requests received since 2010. By far the most common removal request was for “defamation”, about 25% of which were court ordered.

Doodle complied, with 80% of the court-ordered requests, but only 26% of those made by police or other government agencies.

The United States

Mayoo, Nanosoft, and Doodle are based in the United States, and so must comply with U.S. laws. This includes: censoring things like child pornography, complying with requests for copyright infringement removal, and fielding requests for user information from US law-enforcement agencies.

All three companies require law-enforcement agencies to present a subpoena before accessing metadata (names of senders/receivers, dates, billing address, IP history, etc.), and a court warrant to access content data (subject and bodies of emails, photos, calendars, address books, etc.).

Although the National Security Agency (NSA) may have access to all Internet traffic in the US, much of the users data that the companies maintain is encrypted and can only be obtained directly from these companies.

In 2012, Doodle received 16,400 data requests from the US government, complying with about 89% of them.

Form 3B – Mayoo Background Of Past Activities Concerning Censorship And User Information

China

First to enter the Chinese market in 1996, Mayoo agreed to comply with Chinese censorship laws and requests for information. It justified this by claiming that its services were overall a positive influence in China. Critics objected that it was not providing any more access than their Chinese competitors and that participation in censorship lent it a sense of legitimacy.

In 2004 Mayoo’s China operations gained international notoriety when four Chinese dissidents were jailed because it released the contents of their email accounts to the Chinese government. Mayoo’s CEO was made to testify before congress and personally apologized to the arrested dissidents. The company settled a lawsuit brought by two of their families and created a fund to help imprisoned dissidents around the world.

Mayoo transferred its China operations to Sinbad, a large Chinese Internet firm with a close relationship to the Chinese government, in exchange for a 40% stake in its parent company. Sinbad declared that it would fully cooperate with the Chinese government in any future conflict. Its CEO said, “I’m not a political group; I’m a businessman.”

In 2012 Mayoo and Sinbad agreed to part ways. Mayoo sold its stake in for a large profit and in 2013 Sinbad returned Mayoo China to Mayoo.

India

While India’s 1.2 billion citizens have the right to free speech, that right is exercised within a volatile mix of religious, ethnic and caste politics and a history of mob violence.

All three companies largely complied with the removal requests, but refused to disclose the identities of the offending material to the Indian government.

Mayoo complied, with 80% of the court-ordered requests, but only 26% of those made by police or other government agencies.

The United States

Mayoo reported received 25,000 user-data requests from US government agencies in the previous 6 months, usually concerning criminal investigations such as fraud, homicide, and kidnappings.

Form 3C – Nanosoft Background Of Past Activities Concerning Censorship And User Information

China

While its China ventures have yet to be as profitable as it had hoped, Nanosoft has a favorable image in China and has cultivated good relations with the Chinese government.

Nanosoft self-censors and complies with government censorship requests. The company views these restrictions as the price that must be paid to spread the positive benefits of blogs and online messaging – sharing stories and building relationships.

Chinese bloggers face strict legal controls and must register their online journal with Chinese authorities. In 2005 Nanosoft admitted to removing the blog of an outspoken Chinese journalist, citing its policy of abiding by the laws, regulations and norms of each country in which it operates.

Nanosoft requires users to abide by its code of conduct, which says that users are not allowed to upload, post, or distribute any content which “violates any local and national laws that apply to your location”.

While Nanosoft’s executives strongly believe China’s censorship policies are wrong and have respectfully expressed their views to the Chinese government, they believe that their policies should instead be based on respect for local authority and culture.

In 2011, Nanosoft struck a deal with the biggest Chinese search engine, Baidu.com, to offer Web (censored) search services in English in order to gain more exposure to the Chinese market.

India

While India’s 1.2 billion citizens have the right to free speech, that right is exercised within a volatile mix of religious, ethnic and caste politics and a history of mob violence.

All three companies largely complied with the removal requests, but refused to disclose the identities of the offending material to the Indian government.

The United States

Nanosoft received 11,000 requests made by the US government, 65% resulted in the disclosure of metadata and 14% of content data. 99% of the requests for content data Nanosoft received worldwide were made by the US government.

Form 3D – Communication From Norio Armstrong, Senior Vice President, Global Communications & Public Affairs

Good morning Business Practices Oversight Committee,

I’m Norio Armstrong, Senior Vice President of Global Communications & Public Affairs.

I’ve received a troubling communication today from General Min Ko Ye, Interior Minister of the Republic of Champa. Here’s the gist of it:

A growing indigenous environmentalist movement in Champa (The Ne Manu) has become troublesome to its government by working to undermine government efforts to build large-scale gas pipes through virgin jungle in the northern part of the country. The government, which is regarded by most of the civilized world as an oppressive military junta, sees the organization as a cause of internal unrest and as supporting interests opposing those of the state. We believe that this is so both because of personal (financial) investments government leaders have in such projects and because they sincerely believe that these projects are necessary in order to improve the nation’s economy. The government has accused leaders of Ne Manu of moral corruption and members of the Ne Manu appear to have been brutalized by government-sponsored paramilitary groups.

As a part of its crackdown on the Ne Manu, which it has officially declared to be a terrorist organization, the Champese government demands that all three multinational internet search engine companies serving its country’s population do the following:

Eliminate any reference to this movement and its leaders from our search results and blog entries. (a specific list is provided)

Remove videos and blogs and social media accounts that petition for economic assistance to the Ne Manu or encourage resistance in Champa. (a specific list is provided)

Allow the Champese government access to all of the non-public information we have about Ne Manu or its leaders from emails, blogs, instant message conversations, or social media platforms in our systems.

Remove videos, blogs, and social media messages insulting Champa’s founder, Ly Van Lang.

Remove images, videos, blogs, and social media messages insulting major Thuc and Kiep religious leaders or which may be interrupted as religiously offensive (general guidelines are provided).

Do not reveal any of this to the people or Champa or the international community, as this could threaten the ongoing investigation against the Ne Manu and the security of Champa.

According to General Ye, adhering to these requests will demonstrate our commitment to peace and prosperity in Champa, and our respect for its laws and culture. Failure to meet these demands, he warns, will make things difficult for us in Champa and possibly lead to the termination of our access to Champa’s market of approximately 50 million people.

Some board members want to do as Ye says and comply with all of these requests, but would this make us partly responsible for god-knows-what the Champese government does with our help? Others board members want to take a stand against all government demands and comply with none of these requests. However, we do comply with government requests for censorship, content removal, or user information in many of the countries we operate – including, of course, China, India, and the United States. This year we have received user information requests from 31 nations and removal requests from 90! Can we justify complying with some governments, but not others? Neither of these options is off the table, but minimally they would require a more nuanced justification.

I would like your team to arrive at a decision regarding how we should respond to each of these demands and explain your rationale to our board of directors.

In doing so, I would like you to consider that our two main competitors are in the exact same situation. If any of us is expelled from the Champese market, that company’s market share will very likely to be evenly divided by its competitors.

I would also like you to pay very careful attention to the effect your response will have on our much larger interests in other markets around the world. Our people in China and India, in particular, have informed us that these governments are closely observing the situation.

To help you in your deliberations I have provided a preparatory packet for you. Please read it thoroughly.

I look forward to your recommendations.

Norio D. Armstrong

Senior Vice President,

Global Communications & Public Affairs

Form 3E – Communication from Cynthia Liang, Director For East Asian Affairs, Amnesty International

Good day,

Our sources in Champa inform us that its government has asked for your help in suppressing the Ne Manu movement. You may not like the way that sounds, but that’s the reality of the request you are attempting to decide on. By complying with the government’s demands, you will be assisting that illegitimate military dictatorship in its attempt to isolate, threaten, imprison, torture, and kill members of an indigenous groups fighting to save the environmental integrity of their land against a corrupt, discriminatory, and brutal regime. As of today, the activities of the government’s military and paramilitary forces have claimed the lives of 73 Ne Manu supporters.

Now, we are aware that you must be weighing your response to the Champese government with an eye towards your operations in China, and we think that you should. Towards that end consider our 2013 annual report of the state of human rights in China:

The authorities maintained a stranglehold on political activists, human rights defenders and online activists, subjecting many to harassment, intimidation, arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance. … Access to justice remained elusive for many, resulting in millions of people petitioning the government to complain of injustices and seek redress outside the formal legal system.

Internet censorship in China plays a central role in supporting the existence of these practices and in keeping them hidden from the general population. The same can happen in Champa. Likewise, the Chinese government has a history of demanding information about users of blogging, email, and search engine services. Such information has been used to suppress (often through severe prison sentences) dissident voices in China that seek to move that nation towards greater tolerance and respect for basic human rights. We expect the same to occur in Champa if you comply with their government’s demands.

If you’re considering refusing these demands, it’s time to ask yourself whether Champa’s actions are substantially worse than China’s. And given China’s repressive policies, if you find yourself morally unable to justify support for such practices in Champa, should you not regard support of similar practices in China in the same light?

You hold the key to the world’s access to life-changing information, and with this enormous power comes a great responsibility. Hand those keys over to governments such as Champa’s and you’re dooming their populations to ignorance and injustice.

I urge you to do the right thing: refuse General Ye’s requests and utilize this opportunity to publically announce that you will not agree to similar demands made by any government – including China’s.

Respect the basic dignities of personhood. Protect human rights. The world is watching.

Thank you.

Cynthia Liang

Director for East Asian affairs

Amnesty International

Form 3F – Communication From General Min Ko Ye, Minister of Internal Affairs, Republic of Champa

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Business Practices Oversight Committee,

I am General Min Ko Ye, Minister of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Champa.

I understand that Mr. Armstrong has asked you to convene today in order to determine how to respond to our request for assistance in disrupting the operations of the terrorist group Ne Manu. I would like to address your committee directly on this important matter.

Intent on undermining the progress of our great nation and driven by religious fanaticism and ethnic hatred, the leaders of the Ne Manu led several violent attacks designed to thwart a large gas pipe project critical to our nation’s prosperity. In doing so, they have subverted the will of the people of Champa and harmed their interests.

Last week Ne Manu successfully blew up a section of the new gas line, killing several government officials in the process. These people may have been presented to you as innocent environmentalists, but let me assure you that they are nothing but a bunch of criminals seeking to force concessions from the government of Champa.

Your nation reserves the right to do all it can to protect itself from terrorist activities, as do we. And if you are to play a part in our society, we expect you to respect and help uphold the laws and policies of our government. In fact, as I’m sure Mr. Armstrong has informed you, your continued access to our market may depend on whether or not you stand with the forces of social stability and economic prosperity in Champa. Ne Manu members often communicate with each through email and mislead outsiders with blogs, websites, and social media. They use your services to do this. If, having been informed of the unwilling role played by your company in aiding terrorists, you decide to continue to allow your services to be used for these activities, our laws will consider your company as an accomplice to terror whose presence must be eliminated.

Now, I understand you may view the lengths to which we go to protect our nation’s interests unpalatable – perhaps even immoral. But to speak frankly, the proud people of Champa have very different cultural traditions and national aspirations than your own nation’s. We respect authority and place the greater need of the community over the selfish interests of rogue individuals. And while we are interested in allowing your company to maintain its access to our markets, we are not willing to do so at the cost of allowing you to impose your particular morality on us.

Finally, let me remind you that other companies do offer services to our nation that are very similar to your own. I urge you to cooperate with our government’s effort to eliminate this terrorist threat and remind you that your refusal will result in an immediate halt to your services in our nation.

A lot of money can be made in our developing nation and your shareholders, whose interests you have a fiduciary duty to promote, will do well here – but only as long as you respect the rule of law.

Choose wisely.

Thank you.

General Min Ko Ye

Minister of Internal Affairs

Republic of Champa

Form 3G – Individual Analysis Form

Evaluate the considerations that should bear on any decision regarding these demands:

Demand #1: Eliminate any reference to this movement and its leaders from our search results and blog entries (a specific list is provided).

Demand #2: Remove videos, blogs, and social media accounts that petition for economic assistance to the Ne Manu or encourage violent resistance in Champa (a specific list is provided).

Demand #3: Allow the Champese government access to all of the non-public information we have about Ne Manu or its leaders from emails, blogs, instant message conversations, or social media platforms in our systems.

Demand #4: Remove videos, blogs, and social media messages insulting Ly Van Lang

(a specific list is provided).

Demand #5: Remove images, videos, blogs, and social media messages insulting major Thuc and Kiep religious leaders or which may be interrupted as religiously offensive (general guidelines are provided).

Demand #6: Do not reveal any of this to the people or Champa or the international community, as this could threaten the ongoing investigation against the Ne Manu and the security of Champa.

Form 3H – Group Recommendations Form

Group: ___________________

1. What do you recommend be done with regard to each of General Ye’s demands, and why?

Demand #1: Eliminate any reference to this movement and its leaders from our search results and blog entries (a specific list is provided).

Demand #2: Remove videos, blogs, and social media accounts that petition for economic assistance to the Ne Manu or encourage violent resistance in Champa (a specific list is provided).

Demand #4: Remove videos, blogs, and social media messages insulting Ly Van Lang (a specific list is provided).

Demand #6: Do not reveal any of this to the people or Champa or the international community, as this could threaten the ongoing investigation against the Ne Manu and the security of Champa.

2. What general principle or principles did your group use to arrive at its decisions?

3. Do you have any other recommendations regarding your company’s response that do not directly address the above demands?

4. Sum up your decisions in one sentence articulating your company’s policy on government censorship and user privacy.

Form 4A: Second Communication From Norio Armstrong Senior Vice President, Global Communications & Public Affairs

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let me start by thanking you for your advice regarding the Champese government’s requests. It provides us with a valuable starting point for thinking about a set of problems, which must be immediately addressed, given this morning’s troubling news.

I have just been informed (and I hate to say this) by a New York Times reporter that our CEO has agreed to all of the Champese government’s requests after receiving a personal phone call from the Champese President urging him to do so. However you may feel about that decision, having acquired this information from an anonymous leaker, the New York Times is planning to run this on its website in a couple of hours. The story will be all over the evening news and on every newspaper’s front page by tomorrow morning.

Word is already getting out and we expect the public’s reaction to be that of anger and concern. Worse yet, that reaction will surely generate skepticism and mistrust of several new services that make use of potentially sensitive data we were hoping to launch in the near future, perhaps dooming those services.

There are two general pieces of advice the board of directors needs from you. First of all, how should we respond to the leak? Should we issue an apology of some kind? Defend our CEO’s actions on moral grounds? Blame his consent on government pressure and lay the responsibility entirely in their corner? Distance ourselves from our own CEO’s actions? Fire him? Deny everything? Devise some combination of the above actions? The Champese government issued a “no comment” statement in response to reporters’ inquiries. Maybe we should follow their lead and do the same?

The second looks to clarify our position on these issues to the world. I would like you to prepare a presentation of our policy, first for the board of directors, and once approved, to the international press as well. We want to move in front of this thing and I think the best way to do that is to let people know just where we stand.

Here is what I want your presentation to do:

Clearly articulate the recommendations you made to our company’s board of directors regarding General Ye’s requests and the justifications for each of those recommendations.

The reporters will want to know what our company’s global policy is on censorship, privacy, and user information. So, expand the reasoning behind those recommendations to propose a global policy on government censorship and user privacy for our company. Keep in mind that we operate in over a hundred nations with different laws, cultures, and social norms. Our policy needs to be flexible enough to deal with those differences, while also consistent enough to be communicated sensibly and avoid charges of hypocrisy.

Finish your presentation by clearly explaining how this policy reflects our company’s commitment to meet its corporate social responsibilities (CSR). To do this, you will need to connect it to a specific CSR model. I have provided you with a brief of four types of CSR models.

The New York Times has given us 90 minutes from now to respond. That means I you have about 30 minutes to get back to me with your recommendations.

In case it helps, the spotlight is not on us alone. It seems that the Champese president is a very persuasive man, and that our two main competitors are in exactly the same boat.

We’re counting on you,

Norio Armstrong

Senior Vice President,

Global Communications & Public Affairs

Form 4B: Four Models Of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Economic model of CSR – Corporations must maximize profits for their shareholders and obey the law. They may not take any actions that are counter-productive to these ends, such as philanthropic contributions that are not expected to increase profits for shareholders by generating positive publicity.

Philanthropic model of CSR - Business must seek profit for their shareholders and obey the law, but may also engage (though are not obligated) in philanthropic activities not expected to increase profits for shareholders by generating positive PR.

Social Web model of CSR – Corporations are members of society and like all other members, are embedded within a web of social relationships of mutual rights and responsibilities.

Integrative model of CSR - Part, or all, of the mission of the (for-profit) company is explicitly to serve some important social goals (e.g. environmental protection, poverty relief, racial harmony, etc.)

*Based on “Models of Corporate Social Responsibility” (Figure 5.2 – pg. 211) presented by Laura Hartman & Joe DesJardins, Business Ethics: Decision Making for Personal Integrity & Social Responsibility (2010)

Appendix: Sample Scoring Sheet

Round: ____ Company Scored: ______ Scored By: ______

Evaluate the success of the company’s Business Practices Oversight Committee’s responses to each of this round’s questions along the following three categories:

Moral awareness – How well does the response identify the relevant facts that bear on the decision, its stakeholders, what each has at stake, and the available options (obvious and otherwise) to be considered?

Moral reasoning – How well does the response identify the various types of moral considerations presented by the situation and connect these to its evaluation of what to do? Does it offer reasons for why a particular course action should be taken, rather than competing alternatives? Are these good reasons – ones that any reasonable stakeholder should accept?

Effective implementation strategy – Responsible ethical decision-making concerns actions to be performed in the “real world.” Does the response identify potential practical obstacles to successfully carrying out its recommend course of action? Does it consider and/or offer strategies for tackling these obstacles effectively?

	Moral awareness	Moral reasoning	Effective implementation	Totals
Question 1
Question 2
Question 3
Question 4
Question 5
			Total Score:

Adjust the number of questions per round as necessary

Award 1-5 points to each question for each of the above categories along the following scale:

[Excellent = 5, Very good = 4, Average = 3, Poor = 2, Very poor = 1]

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This work would never have been possible without the initiative and support of Gita Govahi and the USC Experiential Learning Center. Special thanks to the wonderfully helpful Pierre Corbeil, without whom CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION would not exist as a game. Thanks as well to Carmen Elena Mitchell, Luis Reyes, Jodi Berman Kustanovich, and W.J.T. Mitchell for their feedback and valuable insights.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Shlomo Sher, PhD, is a lecturer in philosophy at California State University, Fullerton and an ethics trainer. He has developed ethics workshops for the USC Marshall School of Business Experiential Learning Center and the USC Levan Institute’s Teaching Ethics Program. He is interested in the use of games and simulations for developing the philosophical skills involved in responsible ethical decision-making.

Contact: ssher@fullerton.edu

References

Bos

N. D.

Shami

N. S.

Naab

(2006). A globalization simulation to teach corporate social responsibility: Design features and analysis of student reasoning. Simulation & Gaming, 37(1), 56-72.

Felgendreher

Gavrić

Kirschenbaum

Kratsylo

Pieniazek

Radević

Salčić

(2011). Business ethics in a globalized economy. Humanity in Action. Retrieved from http://www.humanityinaction.org/knowledgebase/334-business-ethics-in-a-globalised-economy-a-simulation-for-use-in-youth-and-adult-education (accessed 8 November 2015).

Hartman

DesJardins

(2010). Business ethics: Decision making for personal integrity & social responsibility (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

James

C. R.

Smith

J. G.

(2007). George Williams in Thailand: An ethical decision-making exercise. Journal of Management Education, 31, 696-712.

Shami

N. S.

Box

Fort

Gordon

(2004). Designing a globalization simulation to teach corporate social responsibility. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 31, 22-27.

Teach

R. D.

Christensen

S. L.

Schwartz

R. G.

(2005). Ready-to-use-simulation: THE SLIPPERY SLOPE. Simulation & Gaming, 36, 407-416.