Ethics Case 1: NestleIn your opinion, is NestlAcs action of, Lecture notes of Accounting

Download Ethics Case 1: NestleIn your opinion, is NestlAcs action of and more Lecture notes Accounting in PDF only on Docsity! Ethics Case 1: Nestle In your opinion, is Nestlé’s action of draining the groundwater in the Canyon spring during a drought ethical or unethical? In my opinion, I think it leans more towards unethical due to California being in a draught for years and Nestle draining the groundwater to bottle which leads to that water not spreading to the towns who are struggling for water. However, they aren’t committing any crimes in doing this as they have a business to bottle water and that plant has been on the Indian reservation long before California draught so they are conducting business per usual even though it might seem unfair to Californians. Does Nestle have an ethical obligation to disclose proprietary information, such as the amount of groundwater extracted and the water levels in Millard Canyon spring? Or does Nestle have the right to privacy and therefor need not disclose water consumption information? Technically Nestle has the right to privacy and does not need to disclose the water consumption information as the plant is on an Indian Reservation, which is not required to follow California laws and regulations of disclosing the water consumption. The Morongo Band of Mission Indians oversees it and states they are environmentally responsible and Nestle maintains that it complies with regulations and operates transparently. I think it would be more ethical to do the right thing and disclose but truly, they are not acting unethically just because they are not putting their water consumption in a report for the public. It could lead to consumers choosing a different brand such as Starbucks bottled water as they had moved their plant out of California for ethical reasons of the draught. COBHAM PRIVATE Ethics Case 2: General Motors Ignores Obvious Ignition Faults What are the reasons behind GM’s lack of acti on on suspicions’ that their igniti on switches were faulty? They stated multiple reasons in the case such as another engineer stating he did not think it could endanger lives; the cost was a factor as it would have been a fix at 57 cents per switch, and that it would take too long to fix. Should any GM personnel go to jail over the igniti on switch failures? If so, who? In my opinion, they acted unethical and I would have thought people at the top level of GM would face charges involving jail, especially with all the deaths their problem caused. They acted unethical as the problem was known and they decided not to fix and instead just give a warning to dealers. There are many other cases of CEO’s or other top executives committing fraud and having jail charges so with something this big of being known and acting unethically and leading to deaths I would think some GM personnel would face jail charges. Should a company be able to escape liability for harming individuals by declaring bankruptcy? No, I do not think a company should be able to escape liabilities for harming individuals by declaring bankruptcy however, even though it is unethical companies are allowed to do this. It’s then up to the courts decide on that but I do think it’s unethical and even though GM was COBHAM PRIVATE