The CEO of Steadfast, Inc. learns that financially, the New Hampshire company is in trouble. Steadfast produces many crafts and furniture, made of wood and other natural components such as stone. The company has recently opened a smaller operation with only 50 employees in Illinois. That operation is known as Gifted (trade name) but it is part of Steadfast. The Illinois employees who create the crafts in Gifted were all trained in New Hampshire by the Steadfast employees. A good number of the Steadfast employees have designed the crafts and furniture. There are 3,000 employees, all local, who work in manufacturing, assembly and operations and most have done so for decades.
However, the company is losing money. It has to triple sales in two years to remain competitive. Some of the costs could be saved if the New Hampshire company base were permanently closed and all operations and company presence shifted to Illinois. There is a larger workforce available for future growth there and there are many suppliers who do a lot of business in Midwestern Cities and would cut costs of materials. Since the New Hampshire company is in a rural area, there are not many job opportunities for the employees. If the New Hampshire business closes its doors, nearly all would be unemployed for the long term and the local economy, which also benefits from taxes paid by Steadfast Inc (for schools and so forth), would also suffer. Professional financial analysts have predicted the company would do very well if it shut down the New Hampshire business and shifted everything to Illinois. The financial analysts have also advised, however, that there is not enough money to ‘move’ even one-third of the employees to Illinois because the company is now losing money. The CEO is not personally wealthy and knows that most employees, with strong ties to the community, would probably not even want to go. The financial analysts have dismal predictions for the ability of Steadfast to keep doing business if their recommendation is not followed and the New Hampshire company continues. But the CEO, who has headed the company for 25 years, looks at the employees like family. The CEO could also keep the Steadfast business running and hope that in two years, sales are tripled. The employees are aware of the need to increase profits dramatically. All the employees are anxious to put in extra work and do what it takes. Assume the CEO decides to keep the business running but after one year, the company (included the Gifted branch business) has to file for bankruptcy, meaning many creditors are not paid and the shareholders do not collect anything. Did the CEO make the right decision?
Your task: Provide an ethical analysis as follows:. Would utilitarianism have led the CEO to the same decision (keep the company running)? Would Kant have done what the CEO did (kept the company running)?.
Be sure to review and use the ethics notes document on the module for Law and Ethics and in using the relevant ethical principles and concepts, incorporate relevant facts in your analysis. You may briefly add your own view as CEO (using any other approach) at the end but you will only receive credit for application of the above two approaches. There is a sample problem analysis on Canvas that offers samples of legal analysis and ethical analysis. Recommended Page limit: One page, single-spaced. Estimated length for concise writers: two paragraphs, 7 sentences per paragraph, still probably over half a page. IF you write more, I will read it (ie 2 pages) but make sure your work is organized, not repetitive and so forth.
Please see the sample question and answer attached.
