Business Ethics Case Study: Zarley's Case

During a meeting, one of Zarley’s prospective landlords offers him $10,000 and two iPods in which he states that they are for Zarley’s family (Ethical Reasoning, 2013, p. 2). This was done in an effort to manipulate Zarley into entering a long-term lease agreement with him. When Zarley realised his true intentions, he refused the landlord's offer but failed to report the incident to his supervisor. As a result, serious issues were raised as to whether Zarley acted ethically and legally in that instance.
Ethics and law are closely intertwined as both are focused on what is right and wrong. Ethics are principles that guide a person's actions, while the law enforces those principles to prevent immoral behaviour. In regards to the case, Zarley’s
duty was to ensure that business activities did not exceed the ethical boundaries established by the bank’s code of business conduct. It stated that employees will not participate in bribery or corrupt business practices. In this context, Zarley acted legally since he refused Brady’s offer. From a legal standpoint, for there to be a legally binding contract between Zarley and Brady, there had to be an intention to create a legal relations, an offer and acceptance. There was intention on Brady’s side, but Zarley did not accept the offer nor did he made a promise to perform a service. Therefore, Zarley did not breach his fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the bank. If this was to occur, Zarley would have been personally liable for any damages done to the bank's reputation.
The ethical reasoning of character and virtue guided Zarley’s decision in acting disinterested in Brady’s offer.
As stated in the case “he know it’s wrong to accept so he politely returns the money and iPods to Brady” (p. 2). Zarley strived to make the right decision that will be in line with his virtue and the company's code of conduct. By doing this, he promoted competition and fairness between the landlords. As a result, they were given an equal advantage to prove their worthiness of a contract. Zarley refused to compromise his virtues even if accepting the bribe could result in short-term profit. As stated in the case “he knows it's wrong to accept” the bribe (p. 2). They key word here is “wrong” which suggests that he realises that he has a duty to follow the code of conduct. The moral rule is it is wrong to accept a bribe, especially if he knew Brady’s intentions. Zarley emphasises the role of character virtue and in doing so, his action does not damage the morale of the team and bank.
Furthermore, the case stated that “Zarley badly needs the money”. For example, although it's illegal for Zarley to accept the bribe, it is also unethical not to support his family. Zarley declined Brady’s bribe even though he could have improved his family circumstances by keeping the $10,000. This shows that Zarley decision was not self-centered because he considered the extent to which accepting the bribe will have on others. He encompasses virtue of benevolence and fairness as he ensured that the bank’s codes were being
followed.