Smith & Roberson's Business Law,
18th Edition
By Barry S. Roberts
Complete Chapter Solutions Manual
are included (Ch 2 to 50)
* There is no Solution for Ch. 1
** Immediate Download
** Swift Response
** Answer Guide included
,Solution and Answer Guide: Mann/Roberts, Smith & Roberson's Business Law, 18e, 9780357364000; Chapter 2: Business Ethics
and the Social Responsibility of Business
Solution and Answer Guide
Mann/Roberts, Smith & Roberson's Business Law, 18e, 9780357364000; Chapter 2: Business
Ethics and the Social Responsibility of Business
Table of Contents
Answers to Problems ................................................................................................................................................... 1
Answers to Problems
1. You have an employee who has a chemical imbalance in the brain that causes him to be severely
emotionally unstable. The medication that is available to deal with this schizophrenic condition is
extremely powerful and decreases the taker's life span by one to two years for every year that the
user takes it. You know that his doctors and family believe that it is in his best interest to take the
medication. What course of action should you follow?
Answer: Arguments Against Social Responsibility. This question illustrates one scenario where
arguments against corporate social responsibility could come into play. If you take the “anti-social
responsibility” position that a corporation has—as its primary objective—a fundamental responsibility
to maximize profits, the employer could make the medication a requirement for the employee to
remain in the workforce. It could be argued that this decision may also decrease the possibility of
injury or deterioration in working conditions for other employees. The other side of the argument,
however, is that this type of decision is too personal for a corporation to make. The ultimate
determination should reside with the employee and it should be his free decision to take or not take
the medication. This puts the responsibility back where it belongs, on the employee and his family.
2. You have a very shy employee from another country. After a time, you notice that the quality of her
performance is deteriorating rapidly. You find an appropriate time to speak with her and determine
that she is extremely distraught. She tells you that her family has arranged a marriage for her and that
she refuses to obey their contract. She further states to you that she is thinking about committing
suicide. Two weeks later, after her poor performance continues, you determine that she is on the
verge of a nervous breakdown; and once again she informs you that she is going to commit suicide.
What should you do? Consider further that you can petition a court to have her involuntarily
committed to a mental hospital. You know, however, that her family would consider such a
commitment an extreme insult and that they might seek retribution. Does this prospect alter your
decision?
Answer: Arguments For Social Responsibility. A good, responsible manager would be hard-pressed to
demand that the employee either improve her on-the-job performance or face dismissal. However,
initiating an involuntary committal to a mental hospital could constitute an improper invasion of rights
with many legal repercussions. An interim step of providing appropriate psychological social
counseling (perhaps at company expense) would seem to best fit into the concept of good corporate
management. This would benefit not only the individual, but the corporation may be able to keep a
valued employee. The cost of counseling is likely to be less expensive than hiring and training a new
employee.
3. You receive a telephone call from a company that you never do business with requesting a reference
on one of your employees, Mary Sunshine. You believe that Mary is generally incompetent and would
be delighted to see her take another job. You give her a glowing reference. Is this right? Explain.
1
1
, Solution and Answer Guide: Mann/Roberts, Smith & Roberson's Business Law, 18e, 9780357364000; Chapter 2: Business Ethics
and the Social Responsibility of Business
Answer: Utilitarianism. Pawning off an incompetent employee would certainly help the profitability of an
employer. However, relatively accurate referrals are expected, and good corporate citizenship would
impose a moral responsibility to act properly. The employer would be better advised to give a more
accurate, but not overly negative, description of Mary’s job performance (while staying within the
conditional privilege of avoiding a defamation action), rather than generate animosity and gain a
reputation as a liar among other businesses in the area.
4. You have just received a report suggesting that a chemical your company uses in its manufacturing
process is very dangerous. You have not read the report, but you are generally aware of its contents.
You believe that the chemical can be replaced fairly easily, but that if word gets out, panic may set in
among employees and community members. A reporter asks if you have seen the report, and you
say no. Is your behavior right or wrong? Explain.
Answer: Utilitarianism. Weighing the arguments for profitability to shareholders and fairness to
shareholders and employees against the arguments for good corporate citizenship and long-run
profits, an appropriate response might be that you are aware of the report but haven’t thoroughly read
or studied it. Proceeding with a course that acknowledges (at least internally) past dangerous
practices, while immediately correcting the current problems, and correcting future problems in a
timely manner, may be an appropriate legal as well as moral response to this problem. This is one of
the reasons many corporations have a corporate spokesperson to give appropriate and consistent
responses.
5. You and Joe Jones, your neighbor and friend, bought lottery tickets at the corner drugstore. While
watching the lottery drawing on television with you that night, Joe leaped from the couch, waved his
lottery ticket, and shouted, “I've got the winning number!” Suddenly, he clutched his chest, keeled
over, and died on the spot. You are the only living person who knows that Joe, not you, bought the
winning ticket. If you substitute his ticket for yours, no one will know of the switch, and you will be $10
million richer. Joe's only living relative is a rich aunt whom he despised. Will you switch his ticket for
yours? Explain.
Answer: Fundamentalism. Perhaps an advocate of utilitarianism or social egalitarianism might feel that
switching the ticket would be morally appropriate on the premise that it maximized pleasure and was
an appropriate distribution of wealth. However, such a moral rationalization would demonstrate the
flaws in both theories. There is no escaping the fact that switching the tickets would be improper
under the law and most moral theories.
6. Omega, Inc., a publicly held corporation, has assets of $100 million and annual earnings in the range
of $13–$15 million. Omega owns three aluminum plants, which are profitable, and one plastics plant,
which is losing $4 million a year. The plastics plant shows no sign of ever becoming profitable,
because of its very high operating costs; and there is no evidence that the plant and the underlying
real estate will increase in value. Omega decides to sell the plastics plant. The only bidder for the
plant is Gold, who intends to use the plant for a new purpose, to introduce automation, and to replace
all present employees. Would it be ethical for Omega to turn down Gold's bid and keep the plastics
plant operating indefinitely, for the purpose of preserving the employees' jobs? Explain.
Answer: Egalitarianism. Indefinite maintenance of the plastics plant may strike one as being the morally
correct thing to do. The moral basis for such a decision would be essentially egalitarianism where the
wealth generated by many is redistributed to benefit others. However, as the basis for an economic
system, such an approach may be doomed to ultimate failure in that it does not rectify anything and
only prolongs a perhaps snowballing problem that could taint and impair the job security of everyone
employed by Omega. If managerial and operational changes truly cannot rectify the net loss situation
suffered by the plastics plant, sale of the plant to Gold may, in a broader context, be the morally
correct thing to do.
2
2
18th Edition
By Barry S. Roberts
Complete Chapter Solutions Manual
are included (Ch 2 to 50)
* There is no Solution for Ch. 1
** Immediate Download
** Swift Response
** Answer Guide included
,Solution and Answer Guide: Mann/Roberts, Smith & Roberson's Business Law, 18e, 9780357364000; Chapter 2: Business Ethics
and the Social Responsibility of Business
Solution and Answer Guide
Mann/Roberts, Smith & Roberson's Business Law, 18e, 9780357364000; Chapter 2: Business
Ethics and the Social Responsibility of Business
Table of Contents
Answers to Problems ................................................................................................................................................... 1
Answers to Problems
1. You have an employee who has a chemical imbalance in the brain that causes him to be severely
emotionally unstable. The medication that is available to deal with this schizophrenic condition is
extremely powerful and decreases the taker's life span by one to two years for every year that the
user takes it. You know that his doctors and family believe that it is in his best interest to take the
medication. What course of action should you follow?
Answer: Arguments Against Social Responsibility. This question illustrates one scenario where
arguments against corporate social responsibility could come into play. If you take the “anti-social
responsibility” position that a corporation has—as its primary objective—a fundamental responsibility
to maximize profits, the employer could make the medication a requirement for the employee to
remain in the workforce. It could be argued that this decision may also decrease the possibility of
injury or deterioration in working conditions for other employees. The other side of the argument,
however, is that this type of decision is too personal for a corporation to make. The ultimate
determination should reside with the employee and it should be his free decision to take or not take
the medication. This puts the responsibility back where it belongs, on the employee and his family.
2. You have a very shy employee from another country. After a time, you notice that the quality of her
performance is deteriorating rapidly. You find an appropriate time to speak with her and determine
that she is extremely distraught. She tells you that her family has arranged a marriage for her and that
she refuses to obey their contract. She further states to you that she is thinking about committing
suicide. Two weeks later, after her poor performance continues, you determine that she is on the
verge of a nervous breakdown; and once again she informs you that she is going to commit suicide.
What should you do? Consider further that you can petition a court to have her involuntarily
committed to a mental hospital. You know, however, that her family would consider such a
commitment an extreme insult and that they might seek retribution. Does this prospect alter your
decision?
Answer: Arguments For Social Responsibility. A good, responsible manager would be hard-pressed to
demand that the employee either improve her on-the-job performance or face dismissal. However,
initiating an involuntary committal to a mental hospital could constitute an improper invasion of rights
with many legal repercussions. An interim step of providing appropriate psychological social
counseling (perhaps at company expense) would seem to best fit into the concept of good corporate
management. This would benefit not only the individual, but the corporation may be able to keep a
valued employee. The cost of counseling is likely to be less expensive than hiring and training a new
employee.
3. You receive a telephone call from a company that you never do business with requesting a reference
on one of your employees, Mary Sunshine. You believe that Mary is generally incompetent and would
be delighted to see her take another job. You give her a glowing reference. Is this right? Explain.
1
1
, Solution and Answer Guide: Mann/Roberts, Smith & Roberson's Business Law, 18e, 9780357364000; Chapter 2: Business Ethics
and the Social Responsibility of Business
Answer: Utilitarianism. Pawning off an incompetent employee would certainly help the profitability of an
employer. However, relatively accurate referrals are expected, and good corporate citizenship would
impose a moral responsibility to act properly. The employer would be better advised to give a more
accurate, but not overly negative, description of Mary’s job performance (while staying within the
conditional privilege of avoiding a defamation action), rather than generate animosity and gain a
reputation as a liar among other businesses in the area.
4. You have just received a report suggesting that a chemical your company uses in its manufacturing
process is very dangerous. You have not read the report, but you are generally aware of its contents.
You believe that the chemical can be replaced fairly easily, but that if word gets out, panic may set in
among employees and community members. A reporter asks if you have seen the report, and you
say no. Is your behavior right or wrong? Explain.
Answer: Utilitarianism. Weighing the arguments for profitability to shareholders and fairness to
shareholders and employees against the arguments for good corporate citizenship and long-run
profits, an appropriate response might be that you are aware of the report but haven’t thoroughly read
or studied it. Proceeding with a course that acknowledges (at least internally) past dangerous
practices, while immediately correcting the current problems, and correcting future problems in a
timely manner, may be an appropriate legal as well as moral response to this problem. This is one of
the reasons many corporations have a corporate spokesperson to give appropriate and consistent
responses.
5. You and Joe Jones, your neighbor and friend, bought lottery tickets at the corner drugstore. While
watching the lottery drawing on television with you that night, Joe leaped from the couch, waved his
lottery ticket, and shouted, “I've got the winning number!” Suddenly, he clutched his chest, keeled
over, and died on the spot. You are the only living person who knows that Joe, not you, bought the
winning ticket. If you substitute his ticket for yours, no one will know of the switch, and you will be $10
million richer. Joe's only living relative is a rich aunt whom he despised. Will you switch his ticket for
yours? Explain.
Answer: Fundamentalism. Perhaps an advocate of utilitarianism or social egalitarianism might feel that
switching the ticket would be morally appropriate on the premise that it maximized pleasure and was
an appropriate distribution of wealth. However, such a moral rationalization would demonstrate the
flaws in both theories. There is no escaping the fact that switching the tickets would be improper
under the law and most moral theories.
6. Omega, Inc., a publicly held corporation, has assets of $100 million and annual earnings in the range
of $13–$15 million. Omega owns three aluminum plants, which are profitable, and one plastics plant,
which is losing $4 million a year. The plastics plant shows no sign of ever becoming profitable,
because of its very high operating costs; and there is no evidence that the plant and the underlying
real estate will increase in value. Omega decides to sell the plastics plant. The only bidder for the
plant is Gold, who intends to use the plant for a new purpose, to introduce automation, and to replace
all present employees. Would it be ethical for Omega to turn down Gold's bid and keep the plastics
plant operating indefinitely, for the purpose of preserving the employees' jobs? Explain.
Answer: Egalitarianism. Indefinite maintenance of the plastics plant may strike one as being the morally
correct thing to do. The moral basis for such a decision would be essentially egalitarianism where the
wealth generated by many is redistributed to benefit others. However, as the basis for an economic
system, such an approach may be doomed to ultimate failure in that it does not rectify anything and
only prolongs a perhaps snowballing problem that could taint and impair the job security of everyone
employed by Omega. If managerial and operational changes truly cannot rectify the net loss situation
suffered by the plastics plant, sale of the plant to Gold may, in a broader context, be the morally
correct thing to do.
2
2
