Vrinda was a managing director in a large private company having a workforce of 500 employees. On a day in late-August 2020, Vrinda received a complaint from an employee in the Research and Development (R&D) department. The company had just received clearance from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) for commercially launching its new line of nutritional supplements that helped increase human immunity against COVID 19. The research on immunity-increasing food supplements had been going on for months in the R&D department. The employee, a junior researcher who was part of the supplements’ research himself at some point, recently gained access to the documents submitted to FSSAI for approval. Going through all the documents he was shocked to find out that a number of results of experiments were fabricated. Although the conclusion of the report strongly supported the positive effects of the supplements, there were dangerous side effects that could potentially nullify the gains. The negative effects were deliberately played down. The employee was hesitant to bring up this matter to his immediate superior, apprehending that the latter was also part of the nexus that fudged the figures and fabricated the report. Hence, he approached the MD to apprise her about the scandal in the offing, if the anomaly were to be found out on a later date, i.e., after the products were launched in the market. Based on your understanding of the principles of business ethics, discuss the pros and cons of the employee blowing the whistle on potential wrongdoing in Vrinda’s company. How well can we explain it on the basis of cost-benefit analysis, or the employee as a loyal agent, or any other relevant theory?
Vrinda was a managing director in a large private company having a workforce of 500 employees. On
a day in late-August 2020, Vrinda received a complaint from an employee in the Research and
Development (R&D) department. The company had just received clearance from the Food Safety and
Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) for commercially launching its new line of nutritional supplements
that helped increase human immunity against COVID 19. The research on immunity-increasing food
supplements had been going on for months in the R&D department. The employee, a junior researcher
who was part of the supplements’ research himself at some point, recently gained access to the
documents submitted to FSSAI for approval. Going through all the documents he was shocked to find
out that a number of results of experiments were fabricated. Although the conclusion of the report
strongly supported the positive effects of the supplements, there were dangerous side effects that could
potentially nullify the gains. The negative effects were deliberately played down. The employee was
hesitant to bring up this matter to his immediate superior, apprehending that the latter was also part of
the nexus that fudged the figures and fabricated the report. Hence, he approached the MD to apprise
her about the scandal in the offing, if the anomaly were to be found out on a later date, i.e., after the
products were launched in the market.
Based on your understanding of the principles of
wrongdoing in Vrinda’s company. How well can we explain it on the basis of cost-benefit analysis, or
the employee as a loyal agent, or any other relevant theory?
Step by step
Solved in 4 steps
