• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Case1
 

Case1

on

  • 1,059 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,059
Views on SlideShare
1,059
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Case1 Case1 Document Transcript

    • Christine Nguyen Professor Mclaughlin Management 05 20 April 2010 Nicolo Pignatelli and Gulf Italia Closing Case 1. Although all of the options he had in mind are in some sort of a burden and risk, Pignatelli should just play it straight and try to gain government authorization. It may be a difficult task and may take up to many months, or years even making the production go on standby and losing millions as time goes on, but it would be beneficial for him in a long term perspective to where eventually he would be able to compensate for all the months and years he has missed and not risking misconduct. I would definitely pick this option as well because I’m viewing this case from the moral rights approach, and that the first option of playing it straight and abiding by government authorization is the most ethical out of the other options that were considered. It is not certain that Mobil would be able to influence the government, and bribing the government is just building a negative character of a company that will be viewed as mistrusting, unreliable, and incompetent. 2. Pignatelli decisions of potentially hiring a consultant who might use part of the money for bribes, would still absolve Pignatelli as fault, even if he didn’t directly pay the bribe. From what the efficiency prospective has covered, it seemed as though Pignatelli is the owner and the agent while his consultant would be the stakeholder and for this scenario, the manager of control for now. Friedman mentioned about managers maximizing the return to the shareholder, where the manager’s are in charge of the control, returning back to the shareholder, and only following their desire. I emphasize their desire because it was Pignatelli that hired the consultant to get his
    • operation running, no matter it takes and without elaboration of how he was going to do. The consultant is the stakeholder and Pignatelli is the shareholder and they have full responsibility regardless. 3. According to the moral rights approach, even though bribes are illegal Italy, but it is a common practice, it doesn’t justify paying them because. I look at this situation, balancing the positive and negative consequences. Yes, everyone does it, but what it doesn’t work with Pignatelli because he’s working on permission from the government? Or, yes everyone does it, but how would that make the company look as a whole when working/partnering up with other companies? Or yes everyone does it, but is it the proper procedure that will ensure stability? 4. Technically, Pignatelli does not have the responsibility to Italian citizens to build an environmentally friendly refinery above and beyond what the law requires. Also, it isn’t appropriate for Gulf to spend this extra money and take it away from the shareholder because it isn’t their decision to make. Pignatelli’s decision to Italian citizens really depends how he might view operations through certain perspectives and decision making approaches. If Pignatelli was follow his operation under the Social Responsibility Perspective he is taking into consideration about the amount of reasonable returns to his stakeholders (in this case, the Italian citizens who may also be his customers), as oppose of only focusing the maximum return to himself under the Efficiency Prospective. His decision making approaches would be a combination of moral rights and universal because, well, it’s just the right thing do to be environmental friendly. Lastly, he would be viewed as an Anticipator, owing to society to anticipate and avoid troubling actions and abiding the government law. 5. I honestly would lost respect and not feel secure working in a company that granted the government’s permission through bribery because it shows mistrust, manipulation, and lack of
    • commitment. I feel as a lower-level employee, I don’t have any obligations to this decision. This is something that should be presented to the boss first, but I feel as though the situation still wouldn’t change because what’s been done is done. If there is lack of compassion to what I or any other lower-level employees have to say about this situation than it should be reported to the media.