Handout 3: Nelson Mandela (1)

Handout 4: GAIL pipeline blast kills (2), Possible closing of Nokia Plant in Chennai (3)
Handout 5: Panama Nature Fresh LTD. (4), The horrors of Chicken farms (5)
Handout 6: Managing Trusting Relationships in Indian Organized Retailing (6), Bain sues EY over $60-m
loss in Lilliput Kidswear (7)
Handout 7: Dassault Aviation and the Defense Ministry, India, (8) Arun Jaitley, Modiys Chanakya (9)
Handout 8: The Glory and Decline of Merrill Lynch: Violation of rights and Duties? (10), The Debacle of
Paid News Media in India (11), Vedanta (12)
Handout 10: Indias Superrich in 2014 (13), Dubious Outcomes at Starbucks Coffee Company (14)

AOL 1

Table 2: Assurance of Learning Model One (AOL 1):

A Descriptive-Analytic Problem Resolution Model
Domain
Search/Identify
Key facts, Key figures,
Key data, Key
information
Key subjects, Key objects,
Key properties and
Key events (SOPE
analysis),
Timeline of key events
Explanations of SOPE?
Key explanation?

Analyze SOPE

Classify SOPE
Categorize SOPE
Characterize SOPE
Problem Identification
Key Problems?
Underlying key problem?
Problem Formulation
Problem specification

Problem solutions
alternatives?

Optimal problem solution

Analysis:
Key Questions

Type of
Analysis

Ethical
Analysis

What? Who? Where? When?

How? How often? And with whom?

Descriptive

Is your search for facts, figures, data and

information objective and unbiased?

Who are the key subjects, what are the

key objects, with what properties and
events? Where, when, how, how often
and with whom do SOPE operate?
What, when and how often of key SOPE
constituents.
Why SOPE? Why did it happen? Why
not?
Major Antecedents of SOPE?
Major Determinants of SOPE?
Major Concomitants of SOPE?
Key Circumstances of SOPE?
Critical Contingencies of SOPE?
Relations between SOPE components or
any two or more key events:
Sequences? Associations? Correlation?
Necessary Conditions?
Sufficient Conditions?
N & S Conditions? Co-causes?
Any analogies?
Key categorization?
Key characterization?
What are the controllable variables (X)?
What are the uncontrollable variables
(Y)?
To what extent Y dominates X?
How do define X?
How do you define Y?
How is X related to Y?
How is X related to components of X?
How is Y related to components of Y?
How many solutions can you identify?
How do you rate them in terms of
efficiency, effectiveness, sales earnings,
market share, profits, growth,
development, and market valuation?
How do you know the solution selected is

Descriptive

Is your search for SOPE honest, objective

and unbiased? That is, are you using the
right SOPE for ethical analysis? How do
you ensure this?
Is your timeline accurate and factual?

Descriptive
Analytic

Is your explanation of SOPE valid, useful,

objective and unbiased?
Are you looking for the right antecedents,
determinants and concomitants of SOPE?
Are you explaining SOPE away via
circumstances and contingencies?

Analytic

Are you looking for the right relations

between SOPE components?
Are you projecting, overstating or
understating such relations?

Analytic

Are your SOPE classification,

categorization and characterization based
on right analogies, valid and meaningful?
Have you identified the key problem with
most X and Y?
Have you assessed control objectively?

Analytic

Analytic

Have you defined the variables rightly?

Analytic

Have you specified the relations between

X and Y objectively?

Analytic

Are your solution-alternatives to the

problem mutually exclusive and
collectively exhaustive (MECE)?

Analytic

Does optimality include social, ethical,

Optimal strategy
Optimal implementation
Consequences

Learning

optimal and not sub-optimal?

What are its tradeoffs?
How do you strategize the optimal
solution?
Are you implementing the final solution
alternative timely and correctly?
Hence what?
What are the major consequences to each
stakeholder?

What have you learnt from AOL1?

moral, spiritual and human dimensions?

Analytic

Analytic

Reflective

Is your strategy legal, social, ethical and

moral? Hence desirable for all?
Is your strategy implementation legal,
ethical and moral?
Are you rightly and fairly assessing
consequences to every major stakeholder?
How justly do you deal with the harmful
consequences, especially to the powerless
and the marginalized?
How can you reinforce good learning?

Table 3: Assurance of Learning Model Two (AOL 2):

An Ethical-Moral Analytic Problem Formulation-Resolution Model
Problem Domain
Exploration

Analysis:
Key Questions

Type of
Analysis

Ethical
Analysis

Who are the key subjects,

what are the key objects,
properties and events
(SOPE) in the problem
domain?
What are the basic legal,
ethical and moral issues
involved in the SOPE
domain?
History or narrative of
key SOPE elements

What do SOPE say and why? What do you

observe? Where are SOPE and why?
When did you notice this problem and
why? How did it come about and how
often? And with whom?
Why do you consider them legal, ethical or
moral? Are there other legal, ethical and
moral issues you have not identified?

Descriptive
Observational

Is your SOPE observational and analytic

search honest, objective and unbiased?

Analytic
Investigational

What are the implications and

ramifications of these legal, ethical and
moral issues?

Whom do you include or exclude in the

SOPE narrative and why? With what
consequences, and to whom?

Is your SOPE narrative, history and

analysis fair, accurate and factual?

Explanation of the SOPE

narrative from an ethical
and moral perspective

Why? Why did it happen? What laws not

complied with? What ethical codes
violated? What moral principles
compromised? What brought this about?
Major social and cultural antecedents?
Major social & cultural determinants?
Major social & cultural concomitants?
Key socio-economic and competitive
circumstances? Regulation-constraints?
Free market resource constraints?
How are SOPE elements ethically and
morally interrelated? Are they mere
random or arbitrary sequences or
associations? Are there strong and
significant correlations among SOPE that
exonerate guilt?

Descriptive
Analytic
Historical
Narrative
Market
Analytic

Analytic

Are you looking for the right relations

and interdependencies between SOPE
elements? Are you projecting, overstating
or understating such relations and
interdependencies?

Analytic

Is your analogy, categorization or

characterization objective, reliable, valid
and meaningful?

Ethical
Analytic

Have you identified the key ethical, moral

and social problem?
How did you assess the gravity of the
problem from a legal, ethical and moral
viewpoint?
Have you invoked the right ethical
theories to understand the problem and
to what effect?

Analyze SOPE from an

ethical and moral
perspective

Characterize SOPE from

an ethical and moral
perspective
Problem SOPE
Characterization from an
ethical and moral
viewpoint
Problem SOPE
Formulation from ethics
theory perspective

Problem SOPE
Formulation from moral
theory perspective

Problem solutions
alternatives?
Learning

Any analogies to past experiences across

industries? How and why do you
categorize SOPE thus? How do you
characterize SOPE interdependencies?
How do you characterize your SOPE
analysis ethically and morally? Why and
why not? What are the major ethical
concepts and constructs involved or should
be included in your SOPE analysis & why?
How do you understand your SOPE
analysis using major ethical theories and
why? For instance, how do you empower
this analysis using Rawlsian distributive
justice principles and why?
How do you understand your SOPE
analysis using major moral principles and
to what effect? For instance, how do you
empower this analysis using Kantian
moral universal principles and why?
How many ethical and moral solutions can
you identify? How do you rate them in
terms of effectiveness and brand value?
What have you learnt from AOL2?

Ethical
Analytic

Is your SOPE narrative and explanation

exclusive, inclusive, valid, useful,
objective and unbiased?
Are you looking for the right antecedents,
determinants and concomitants?
Are you explaining away the legal, ethical
and moral violations via peripheral
circumstances and contingencies?

Moral
Analytic

Have you invoked the right moral

principles to understand the problem and
to what effect?

Analytic

Are your legal, ethical and moral

problem solution-alternatives MECE?

Reflective

How can you reinforce good learning?

Table 4: Assurance of Learning Model Three (AOL 3):

A Problem-Resolution-Outcomes Analytic Model
Domain
Search/Identify

Analysis:
Key Questions

Key outcome-consequences
to subjects, objects,
properties and events
(SOPE)
Key subjects,
Key objects,
Key properties and
Key events (SOPE analysis),

What were the beneficial/harmful

consequences and to whom, when, where, how
serious, how often, and with whom?

Descriptive,
Investigational

Is your search for and analysis of

beneficial/harmful outcomes objective,
unbiased, exhaustive and accurate?

Who were the key stakeholders (subjects),

especially of harmful outcomes, in relation to
what key objects, with what key properties
and key events?

Descriptive,
Investigational

Timeline of key events that

led to beneficial or harmful
consequences
Explanations of harmful
consequences with respect to
SOPE?

What, when and how often of key

consequences to SOPE.

Descriptive

Is your investigation and assessment of the

harmful consequences in relation to SOPE
honest, objective and unbiased? That is, is the
harm accurately assessed in relation to the
right SOPE? How do you ensure this?
Is your timeline accurate and factual?

Analytic,
Investigational

Is your explanation of harmful consequences

in relation to SOPE compelling, valid, useful,
objective and unbiased?
Are you looking for the right antecedents,
determinants and concomitants of these
harmful consequences?

Classify, categorize and

characterize harmful
consequences in relation to
SOPE

Why harm? Why did it happen? Why not

prevented?
Major Antecedents of harmful consequences
in relation to SOPE?
Their major determinants?
Their major concomitants?
Their critical contingencies?
Any analogies?
Key classification?
Key categorization?
Key characterization?

Analytic

Intended and unintended

consequences in relation to
SOPE

What were the intended and unintended

harmful consequences in relation to SOPE,
and why, and how severe?

Analytic,
Investigational

Teleological analysis of the

consequences

Teleologically (i.e., relative to benefits over

costs to the largest number) are harmful
consequences justifiable, and why?
Deontologically (i.e., relative to fulfilled rights
over violated duties of the largest number) are
harmful consequences justifiable, and why?
Distributive justice-wise (i.e., relative to the
equitable distribution of benefits versus costs,
fulfilled rights versus duties violated in
relation to the largest number) are harmful
consequences justifiable, and why?
Corrective justice-wise (i.e., setting up just
procedures for a more equitable distribution
of benefits over costs, rights over duties, and
to the largest number) are harmful
consequences justifiable, and why?
From an executive virtue-based (e.g., fairness,
compassion, prudence) ethics perspective, are
harmful consequences to any stakeholders,
especially the powerless and the marginalized,
justifiable and why?
From an executive trust based (e.g., mutual
transparency, confidence, vulnerability) ethics
perspective, are harmful consequences to any
stakeholders, especially the powerless and the
marginalized, justifiable and why?
Hence, by hindsight what have you learnt
from this problem-resolution process that, by
foresight, will empower you to reduce harmful
consequences, especially to the powerless and
marginalized?
What have you learnt from applying AOL3 to
the problem-resolution?

Teleological
analysis of the
consequences
Deontological
analysis of the
consequences
Distributive
justice based
analysis of the
consequences

Are your analogy, classification, categorization

and characterization of the harmful
consequences relative to key SOPE valid,
useful, compelling and meaningful for
explanation?
Is your search for and assessment of the
intended and unintended harmful
consequences in relation to SOPE valid,
objective, accurate and unbiased?
Is your teleological analysis of assessing
benefits over costs to the largest number valid
and objective?
Is your deontological analysis of assessing
fulfilled rights over violated duties to the
largest number valid and objective?
Is your distributive justice based analysis of
the even or equitable distribution of benefits
over costs, fulfilled rights over violated duties,
and in relation to the largest number, valid
and objective?
Is your corrective justice based analysis of
setting up just processes for a more equitable
distribution of benefits over costs, rights over
duties, and to the largest number, valid and
objective?
Is your executive virtue-based (e.g., fairness,
compassion, prudence) ethical analysis and
justification of harmful consequences to the
stakeholders, especially to the powerless and
the marginalized, valid and objective?
Is your executive trust based (e.g., mutual
transparency, confidence, vulnerability)
ethical justification of harmful consequences
to the stakeholders, especially the powerless
and the marginalized, valid and objective?
Is your hindsight versus foresight analysis of
the problem-resolution valid, defensible,
replicable, and generalizable?

Deontological analysis of the

consequences
Distributive justice based
analysis of the consequences

Corrective justice based

analysis of the consequences

Virtue-ethics based analysis

of the consequences

Trust-ethics based analysis

of the consequences

Hindsight versus foresight

analysis of the problemresolution

Assurance of Learning

Type of
Analysis

Corrective
justice based
analysis of the
consequences
Ethics of virtue
analysis of the
consequences

Ethics of
executive trust
based analysis
of the
consequences
Hindsightforesight
analysis of the
consequences
Reflective

Ethical
Analysis

How can you reinforce AOL3 based learning

by applying it to other problems?

AOL 4

Exhibit 5.1: A Preliminary Check of Cases against Major Definitions of Virtues

Dimensions of Executive
Virtue

Panama Nature
Fresh Pvt. Ltd
(PNFPL)

Chicken

Dividend Payments via

Debt (DPD)

Farm Production
(CFP)

Socrates: Virtue is both knowing the

good and willing the good of our
actions.

PNFPL knew the good

of village farming and
was willing to do it.

Those indulging in CFP

know the evil of chicken
farm production and will
it since CFP continues to
be cruel even to this day.

DPD may not be evil by itself,

but not good in the long run.
Continuing to do it is not
virtuous.

Plato: Four cardinal virtues of

prudence, justice, fortitude and
temperance.

PNFPL seems to
demonstrate all four
cardinal virtues.

CFP seems to disregard

all four cardinal virtues.

DPD seems to demonstrate

fortitude and temperance but
little of prudence and justice.

Democritus (460-370 BC) held that

to call a person good one had not
only to do the good but also want to
do it because it was good. Aristotle
maintained that a virtuous person is
not one who does virtuous acts once
in a while, but one who does them
regularly over long periods of time
and does them as second nature.
(p.19)

PNFPL can be called

good and virtuous
not only because they
do good among village
farmers, but because
doing this activity is
itself good. They
should do it as their
second nature.

CFP as action-strategy
can be called if CFP for
food chain is itself a good
activity. CFP can be
made good when it is
highly civilized and
humanized.

DPD as a strategy can be called

good if it a good activity by
itself, and not only when profits
are low.

Aristotle: Virtue is an acquired

character trait that manifests itself
in habitual action of doing good.

PNFPL seems to verify

this definition

CFP as action-strategy
does not verify it

DPD as a strategy cannot be a

habitual action that does good.

Aquinas: Moral and intellectual

virtues are produced in us by
humanly reasoned acts, and they
perfect us through the doing of
good deeds.

PNFPL is an
intellectual virtue; as a
moral virtue it may be
questionable.

CFP as action-strategy is
hardly an intellectual or
moral virtue.

DPD as action-strategy is
arguably an intellectual virtue
in the short run, but fails as
intellectual and moral virtue in
the long run.

Kant: Virtue is a categorical

imperative; often it may be a
hypothetical imperative.

PNFPL is definitely a
hypothetical
imperative, but not
apparent as a
categorical imperative

CFP is mostly a
reprehensible
hypothetical imperative
as feeding fast food
chains, but never a
categorical imperative.

DPD may be a hypothetical

imperative for satisfying
investors, but never a
categorical imperative.

Foot: Virtues are specific

dispositions determined by the need
to correct certain deficiencies

PNFPL is a virtue in
this sense.

CFP is a virtue to the

extent it feeds the food
chain.

DPD is a virtue in this sense.

MacIntyre: virtues are skills

internal to activities or practices

PNFPL is a virtue in

CFP is a virtue to the

extent it feeds the food

DPD is a virtue in this sense.

that are necessary for the

performance of certain roles or
offices in society.

this sense.

chain.

Exhibit 5.2: A Second Check of Case Companies against Major Developments of

Executive Virtue

Dimensions of Executive
Virtue

Panama Nature
Fresh Pvt. Ltd
(PNFPL)

Chicken

Dividend Payments via

Debt (DPD)

Farm Production
(CFP)

According to Aristotle, moral virtues are

habits that enable a human person to
live according to reason (see p. 9).

PNFPL exhibits moral

virtues as habits that
enable us to live
according to reason.

CFP hardly verifies moral

virtues in the Aristotelian
sense.

DPD may be a temporary moral

virtue and habit, but it does not
empower the executives to live long
according to reason.

Aristotle argued that a proper control of

our reason and passions should not just
repress them completely nor indulge in
them freely. Rather a good virtue is to
seek the mean between two extremes,
both of which are vices. Prudence is the
virtue that enables us to know the mean
in a given situation (see p. 10).

PNFPLs over-expansion
plans may not realize
virtue as a golden mean
between two farm
production extremes.

CFP seems necessary in a

non-vegetarian food chain
context; but cruelty to
chicken from farms to
slaughter could be reduced
following the golden mean.

DPD could be tempered as a

strategy using the golden mean rule
of virtue.

Aristotle also said that a virtue is a

character state concerned with choice
ruled by the golden mean determined
by prudence or the practical reason. It
is not possible to be fully good without
having practical wisdom, nor
practically wise without having
excellence of character (p. 11).

PNFPL seems to be a
right choice as long as the
choice is ruled by the
golden mean determined
by the market place. But
is the choice sourced by
practical reason and
character excellence?

CFP as a choice and actionstrategy can be a virtue if

ruled by the golden mean of
reducing cruelty to animals.
But is the choice as mean
sourced by practical reason
and character excellence?

DPD as a choice and strategy can

be a virtue if and when determined
by the golden mean. But is the
choice as mean sourced by practical
reason or character excellence?

An agent is praised not merely for the

possession of virtue, but for its exercise
and exemplification in concrete
circumstances. The virtuous person is
one who knows how to act and feel in
ways appropriate to the circumstances
(p.11).

PNFPL seems to be a
right choice and an
exercise of virtue led by
concrete village
circumstances of India.

CFP can be a right choice

and an exercise of virtue
when led by concrete
circumstances of providing
affordable quality food via
fast food chains to the
marginalized.

DPD can be a right choice and an

exercise of virtue when led by
concrete circumstances of keeping
investors happy in a stagnant
market.

All perceptions, reactions and

assessments are contextual. The
virtuous act that hits the mean is
directed toward the right persons, for
the right reasons, on the right
occasions, and in the right manner (p.
12).

PNFPL is a contextual
perception, reaction and
assessment that seems to
hit the right persons at
the right time and for the
right reasons.

CFP is a contextual
perception, reaction and
assessment that might have
hit the right persons at the
right time and for the right
reasons.

DPD can be a contextual

perception, reaction and assessment
that may not have hit the right
persons at the right time and for the
right reasons.

The end of life that all human beings

should aim is happiness (eudemonia).
The virtues are not merely means to
happiness, but constitute it; that is,
happiness does not merely consist of
what we get in life but also includes who
we are (p. 13).

PNFPL should aim to

bring happiness
(eudemonia) to all
stakeholders.

CFP can best aim at

consumer satisfaction;
happiness as eudemonia is
farfetched via CFP, unless in
the midst of squalor.

DPD is a satisfaction strategy at

best. Happiness as eudemonia via
DPD is a fuzzy dream.

Real virtue presupposes that what we do

is not only good for one self at a given
time but is really good for ones self as a
human being. It is for the sake of
achieving the latter good that we
practice the virtues and we do so making
right choices about means to achieve
that end (p. 14).

PNFPLs farming
activities can be a virtue
if they do good not only
for the company but for
all its stakeholders as
human beings and in a
permanent way.

CFP is a virtue if it benefits

not only the company but all
its stakeholders as human
beings and in a permanent
way.

DPD may be a temporary virtue to

the extent it benefits not only the
company but all its stakeholders as
human beings and in a permanent
way.

Exhibit 5.3: A Third Check of Cases against Major Processes of an Ethic of Executive Virtue

Dimensions of Executive
Virtue

Panama Nature
Fresh Pvt. Ltd
(PNFPL)

Chicken

Dividend Payments via

Debt (DPD)

Farm Production
(CFP)

Developing a virtue-based ethics for

business, Solomon (1992a: 104) argues
that mere wealth creation should not be
the purpose of any business. Instead, we
must conceive of business as an essential
part of the good life, living well, getting
along with others, having a sense of selfrespect, and being part of something one
can be proud of (p. 17).

PNFPL should not

exclusively focus on wealth
creation, but make it an
essential part of the good life
of village farmers that
enables them to live well,
share with others, and be
proud of themselves as an
exemplary village.

CFP if focused only on profits

can be degrading to animal and
human life. Instead, CFP,
humanely conceived and
designed, can transform itself
into creating a good life for
all, human and non-human
beings.

DPD is a profit-based concept. It

should widen its domain to the
company and its stakeholders, its
local and broader communities in
creating a good life for them
beyond wealth.

Individuals are embedded in

communities and that business is
essentially a community activity in
which we work together for a common
good, and excellence for a corporation
consists of making the good life possible
for everyone in society (Solomon 1992a:
209) (p.17).

PNFPL should consider its

business essentially as a
village community activity
in which all work together
for a common good.
PNFPLs virtue as
excellence should consist of
making good life possible
for all its stakeholders.

CFP can be transformed if its

business is essentially a
community activity where it
functions in which all work
together as a farm community
making good life possible and
available for all its
stakeholders, especially, the
poor.

DPD may be temporarily justified if

its purpose and business is
essentially a community activity in
which all work together as a
stakeholder community making
good life possible and available
for all.

According to MacIntyre, internal

practices with goals and results can
change, expand, diminish, but not at the
expense or gain of another. These
internal goods are not competitive, not
objects but outcomes of competition to
excel; they are unique to the internal
practices; the more one has them, the
better off is the corporation and the
community thereof (p.17).

PNFPL seems to have

developed its own internal
practices and internal
goods that are not
competitive, but outcomes
to excel. These outcomes
are unique to its internal
practices. The more one
has these internal practices,
the better is PNFPL.

CFP does have its own

internal practices that are
competitive and questionable.
They are more based on
external goods that
MacIntyre speaks of. Virtue is
incompatible with external
goods and the cutthroat
competition they imply.

DPD as an internal practice can

be just temporary as they are
deceptive in the long run. They are
based on external goods such as
properties, possessions, profits,
sales and market shares; they are
objects of competition; they are
competitive. In relation to external
goods, winners imply losers, the pie
is fixed, and benefits imply costs.

Business should be a human endeavor

in which executives ought to find
fulfillment, and therefore, emphasize
the need for virtue in business. This is a
valuable reminder that business is part
of human and moral life (p.18).

PNFPL is best when it

becomes a human endeavor
that is part of village human
life and also part of their
moral life.

CFP needs to be much refined

and civilized before it can be a
human endeavor that is part of
human and moral life of
communities that depend upon
fast food chains.

DPD as a temporary strategy can

be a human endeavor; but it cannot
be a lasting feature of human and
moral life of the investor
communities.

To act rightly is to act rightly in affect

and conduct. It is to be emotionally
engaged and not merely to have the
affect as accompaniment or
instrument (Sherman 1989: 2).
Emotions themselves are modes of
moral response that determine what is
morally relevant and, in some cases,
what is required (p. 18).

PNFPL must be emotionally

engaged in village farming
activities; emotions should
modes of their moral
response that help
determine what is relevant
and required in the villages
they work.

CFP is best humanized when all

stakeholders (producers,
distributors and consumers
included) are emotionally
engaged in the lives of animals
they feed on; these modes of
emotional responses should
prompt what is relevant and
required.

DPD is currently profits measure;

when mixed with debt it may
become deceptive. Only emotional
engagement could reveal what is
morally relevant and required in
DPD strategies.

According to Hauerwas (1981), moral

PNFPL can be a moral

CFP is an essential part of the

DPD as a temporary choice and

business management decision is not so

much of what one is obliged to do, but
the kind of person one would be by doing
it . To act rightly is to act rightly in
affect and conduct. Discerning the
morally salient features of a situation is
part of expressing virtue and part of the
morally appropriate response (p. 18).

business management not in

terms what it feels morally
obliged to do, but in being
the kind of moral person it
becomes by doing what it
does. Discerning morally
salient features of village
farming should be a part of
PNFPLs moral virtue.

non-vegetarian food chain. The

challenge is to make it a human
and moral business endeavor in
relation to both humans and
non-humans. Discerning the
morally salient features of CFP
should be a part of expressing
its moral virtue.

strategy is moral if the business is

itself a moral and human endeavor.
Discerning the morally salient
features of DPD is part of
expressing virtue and part of the
morally appropriate response.

There may be a strategic virtue in

doing things rightly, but there is a
moral virtue in doing right things
rightly (Aristotle 1985) (p. 19).

PNFPL should aim at moral

virtue that not only does
right things, but also does
them rightly.

CFP should aim at moral virtue

that not only does right things,
but also does them rightly.

DPD should aim at moral virtue

that not only does right things, but
also does them rightly.

Exhibit 5.4: A Fourth Check of Case Companies against Major Antecedents of

Executive Virtue

Dimensions of Executive
Virtue

Panama Nature
Fresh Pvt. Ltd
(PNFPL)

Chicken Farm
Production (CFP)

Dividend Payments via

Debt (DPD)

Contemporary moral philosophers argue

that executed acts are not necessary for
the moral description of persons. That is,
goodness (or badness) is not consequent
to questions of rightness or wrongness
but antecedent to it, distinct from it,
determinative of it. Persons are good
who strive to realize the right, and
actions are right when they satisfactorily
fulfill the demands of protecting and
promoting values (pp. 20-21).

PNFPLs executed good

acts are not enough to
describe them as moral.
Goodness is antecedent and
determinative of what
PNFPL does. PNFPL is
morally good when it
consistently strives to be
good before launching into
action.

Whether companies that

engage in CFP thinking it
CFP is good does not make
them moral. They are moral
when they consistently strive
to be good before launching
into any CFP action.

DPD does not make companies that

do it automatically moral.
Goodness is antecedent and
determinative of what DPD does.

Thus, a person who performs a wrong

action can be called good for performing
the action, as long he strives to do the
right. Thus, we no longer call people
good if they do good actions, rather we
call them good when they strive to realize
rightness (p. 21).

PNFPLs over-expansion
plans do not determine
whether they are moral or
bad; the question is
whether PNFPL always
seeks to do the right thing
rightly antecedent to
whatever it does.

CFP seems a necessary evil

in a non-vegetarian food
chain context; antecedent to
CFP if companies are
consistently seeking to strive
for rightness, then the guilt
that doing CFP entails may
be exonerated.

DPD may be a necessary evil in a

highly competitive world. Doing
DPD in itself does not make one
good or bad; Striving consistently
to be right and good before any
DPD decisions, defines goodness
and being moral.

Conversely, people are bad not when

they perform bad actions but when
they fail to strive to perform the right.
Badness, then, is not simply acting out of
selfishness or malice; prior to act,
badness pertains to the failure to strive
for rightness (Keenan 1992). [p.21]

What PNFPL does may be

good or bad or indifferent.
What matters for moral
predication is that PNFPL
consistently seeks to do
good and avoid bad.

What CFP does may be good

or bad or indifferent. What
matters for CFP people for
being moral is that they
consistently seek to do good
and avoid evil.

DPD may be good, bad or

indifferent. What matters for
moral attribution is that those
engage in DPD consistently strive to
do good and avoid evil for all its
stakeholders.

Contemporary understanding of moral

goodness is fundamentally related to the
concept of human freedom. Due to
nature, nurture, economics, luck, and
other external causes, some people are
more capable of realizing right activity
and goodness. Some have a ready
disposition to be temperate, or just or
prudent (p.21).

PNFPL makes a right

choice and an exercise of
right virtue when acting
freely from innate strengths
and controlled weaknesses.

CFP can be a right choice

and an exercise of virtue
when led by true freedom of
ones striving for rightness
and avoiding evil.

DPD can be a right choice and an

exercise of virtue when led and
determined by true freedom of
ones striving for rightness and
avoiding evil.

In general, people perform right activity

based on their strengths, and wrong
activity from their weaknesses. Since
each person has a different set of
strengths and weaknesses, each person is
differently inclined to right or wrong (p.
21).

Since PNFPL has a

different set of strengths
and weaknesses, it is
differently inclined to right
or wrong. Any judgment
call should take this into
account.

Those who engage in CFP

come from a different set of
strengths or weaknesses, and
hence, differently inclined to
right or wrong. Any
judgment call should take
this into account.

Those who engage in DPD come

from a different set of strengths or
weaknesses, and hence, differently
inclined to right or wrong. Any
judgment call on them should take
this into account.

One could improve upon ones strengths

PNFPL should

Those who engage in PFP

Those who engage in DPD should

Companies that engage in DPD are

moral when they consistently strive
to be good before launching into
any DPD choice or venture.

and reduce ones weaknesses this is the

exercise of virtue by which one orders
oneself. The more a person enjoys
personal freedom, the more is that
person rightly ordered, and vice versa
(p.21).

continuously and freely

seek to augment its moral
strengths and eliminate its
moral weaknesses. The
more it does this, the more
morally ordered is its
strategic deliberation,
choice and action.

should continuously and

freely seek to augment their
moral strengths and
diminish their moral
weaknesses. The more they
do this, the more morally
ordered are their subsequent
strategic deliberations,
choices and actions.

continuously and freely seek to

augment their moral strengths and
combat their moral weaknesses.
The more they do this, the more
morally ordered are their
subsequent strategic deliberations,
choices and actions in relation to
DPD.

Exhibit 5.5: A Fifth Check of Company Cases against Major Requirements of Moral
Goodness via Executive Virtue

Dimensions of Executive
Virtue

Panama Nature
Fresh Pvt. Ltd
(PNFPL)

Chicken Farm
Production (CFP)

Dividend Payments via

Debt (DPD)

Moral goodness always requires that we

strive to realize the right. Failure to
strive to realize the right is moral
failure.

PNFPL should seek moral

goodness by always striving
to realize the right, and
avoid moral failure of not
striving to realize the right.

Any CFP activity should seek

moral goodness by always
striving to realize the right, and
avoid moral failure of not
striving to realize the right.

Any DPD strategy should seek

moral goodness by always
striving to realize the right, and
avoid moral failure of not
striving to realize the right.

Moral goodness as a striving is not

simply wishing; it is actual selfmotivation willing to consider all the
factors necessary to moral living, to
deliberate about them, and to execute the
decision. That is, moral goodness is found
in the exercise of the will to do and be
good this is virtue ethics.

PNFPL should seek moral

goodness by the exercise of
corporate will - by willing
to consider all the factors
necessary to moral living,
to deliberate about them,
and to execute the
consequent decision.

Any CFP action should seek

moral goodness by the exercise
of corporate will - by willing to
consider all the factors
necessary to moral living
despite CFP, to deliberate
about them, and to execute the
consequent decision.

DPD should seek moral goodness

by the exercise of corporate will by willing to consider all the
factors necessary to moral living
despite DPD, to deliberate
about them, and to execute the
consequent decision.

The contrary of moral goodness is not

the willingness to be bad, but the failure
to be good. The will becomes or is
morally bad in its failure to consider all
the values and factors that pertain to
moral life.

Moral badness for PNFPL

is not its willingness to be
bad, but its failure to be
good when it fails to
consider all the values and
factors that pertain to
moral life in village
farming.
PNFPL can grow in virtue
only if it exercises right acts
in relation to that virtue,
failing which it cannot
become rightly ordered or
virtuous. Exercising right
acts needs wisdom and
reason or prudence.

Moral badness of CFP is not its

willingness to be bad, but its
failure to be good when it
fails to consider all the values
and factors that pertain to
moral life in a CFP context.

Moral badness for DPD is not its

willingness to be bad, but its
failure to be good when it fails
to consider all the values and
factors that pertain to moral life
involved in DPD.

Those who must use CFP can

still grow in virtue of
compassion only if they exercise
right acts in relation to that
virtue, failing which they can
easily become disordered.
Exercising right acts needs
wisdom and good reasoning.

Those who must use DPD can

still grow in virtue of honesty to
stakeholders only if they exercise
right acts in relation to that
virtue, failing which they can
easily become disordered.
Exercising right acts needs
wisdom and good reasoning.

Not all good people are virtuous or

rightly ordered; some good people may
still be disordered in some areas of their
life. Hence, beyond the virtues of
temperance, courage, justice and
prudence, moral philosophers postulate a
fifth virtue that conditions all these four
cardinal virtues to make the person
good: charity or benevolence.

PNFPLs village farming

strategies should be not
only transformed by the
four cardinal virtues of
prudence, fortitude,
temperance and justice, but
also by benevolence that
conditions and sharpens the
four cardinal virtues.

CFP activities should be not

only humanized and civilized
by the four cardinal virtues of
prudence, fortitude,
temperance and justice, but
also by compassion or
benevolence that conditions and
sharpens the four cardinal
virtues.

DPD strategies should be not

only informed by the four
cardinal virtues of prudence,
fortitude, temperance and
justice, but also by charity or
compassion toward all
stakeholders.

Charity or benevolence is a virtue of

striving, whereas temperance, courage,
justice, and prudence are virtues of
attaining. Benevolence (or charity) is the
moral description for a person who
literally strives to realize rightness.

PNFPL can strive for moral

goodness while exercising
benevolence, and can attain
moral goodness while
seeking the four cardinal
virtues of temperance,
courage, prudence and
justice.

All engaged in CFP can still

strive for moral goodness when
exercising compassion and can
attain moral goodness while
seeking the four cardinal
virtues of temperance, courage,
prudence and justice.

Companies that must engage in

DPD can still strive for moral
goodness when exercising
benevolence on all affected by
DPD and can attain moral
goodness while seeking the four
cardinal virtues of temperance,
courage, prudence and justice.

Any willful exercise of virtue is twofold:

the primary exercise out of which we are
moved, and the secondary exercise by
which we execute the judgment to act.
The primary exercise defines goodness;
the secondary exercise defines rightness.

PNFPL needs to seek

goodness by the primary
exercise of being properly
motivated and seek
rightness by the secondary
exercise of deciding to act
rightly.

Any CFP activity needs to seek

goodness by the primary
exercise of being properly
motivated and seek rightness
by the secondary exercise of
deciding to act rightly.

Any PDP activity needs to seek

goodness by the primary exercise
of being properly motivated and
seek rightness by the secondary
exercise of deciding to act rightly
at the right time.

We grow in virtue only if we exercise

right acts in relation to that virtue. If we
do not exercise right or virtuous acts, we
do not become rightly ordered or
virtuous. Exercise needs both
encouragement to execute the act and the
wisdom to know which act to execute, in
which case exercise follows reason.

SalesStimulating

Profitable

Ethical/
Moral

V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V

V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V

V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V

V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V

V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V

V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V

V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V

V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V

V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V

V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V

Customer co-partnering

Customer
SafetySecurity

Innovation Idea generation

Innovation Concept generation
Creativity-Innovation
Patentable ideas and concepts
Prototype generation
Design-testing
Fabrication-casting
Materials selection
Components selection
Assembly line operations
Supply chain management
Purchasing
Transportation logistics
Warehousing
Process Technology
Product Technology
Quality Control
Inventory optimization
Product sizing
Product packaging
Product labeling
Instruction Manuals
Order Processing
Delivery Logistics
Installation/use/maintenance
Inventory replenishment
Store shelving
Shelf replenishment
Product preannouncements
Press Release
Unit Costing
Unit Pricing
Price Bundling
Product Bundling
Rebate and discounting
Free sampling and testing
Promotions & advertising
Credit/financing
Store choice and retailing
Point of purchase display
Salesperson service
Servicing Warranties
Customer complaints
Customer redress
Customer loyalty generation
Building brand Community
Customer co-designing
Customer co-production

Fair &Just
Procedures

Ecological

Downstream
Value Chain:
Back-end
Innovations
(21 areas)

Customer
Privacy

Midstream
Value Chain:
Mid-end
Innovations
(10 areas)

HonestyIntegrity

Upstream
Value Chain:
Front-end
Innovations
(18 areas)

Cost-Effectiveness

Feasibility Viability

Table 5.1: Characterizing the Virtuous Zone of both Internal Practices and External
Goods in a Business Environment (V = Virtue Potential)
Value-Virtue Enhancing Parameters along:
Value-Chain
Value-Chain
Components:
Internal Practices
External Goods
Internal Practices

Table 5.2: A Partial Characterization of Goodwill and Good and the

Opposites

Executive
Motives

Good

Executive Actions
Good

Bad

[Right actions that promote

good values]

[Wrong actions that promote

disvalues]

Assumption 1: Right actions

with right motives are a
necessary condition for calling
a person good (Hare 1952)

Assumption 2: Wrong actions

are not a necessary condition
for calling a person bad
(Aquinas 1964).

Good people doing good.

Good people doing bad.

Examples:

Examples:

A good person

A good-willed failure

A virtuous person

An ignorant mistake

A moral person

A misinformed disaster

An ethical person

A conscientious boycott

A just person

An addicts violence

A righteous person

Killing in a just war

An upright person

Involuntary murder

Assumption 3: Right actions

are not a necessary condition
for calling a person good (Kant

Assumption 4: Right actions

are a necessary condition for
calling a person good (Moore

Bad

1964).

1912)

Bad people doing good.

Bad people doing bad.

Examples:

Examples:

A bad-willed success

A wicked person being

wicked

A malevolent courage
A vicious persons vice
An ill-willed victory
A malicious persons malice
Parading charity
A selfish person acting selfish
Almsgiving for power
Deliberate drunken violence
Oppressive kindness
Killing in an unjust war
Philanthropy for tax write-offs
Voluntary murder

Table 5.3: A Synthesis: Goodwill, Goodness, Right & Good to Understand Virtue versus Vice

Agents
Motives
(Morality
Ethics)

Virtue as
Habitual Predispositions

Nature of
Action

Nature of
Consequences

(Deontology)

(Teleology)

Corporate Executive Examples of

Virtue versus Vice

(Virtue Ethics)
Good-willed corporate executives

Good

Good-striving corporate executives

Right-acting corporate executives

Right
Good corporate management results
Good-willed corporate executives

Goodness as
striving and
wanting to be
right

Bad

Good-striving corporate executives

Right-acting corporate executives
Bad corporate results (e.g., bad economy)
Good-willed corporate executives

Good

Good-striving corporate executives

Wrong-acting corporate executives

Wrong
Good corporate results (e.g., sheer luck)
Good-willed corporate executives

Bad

Good-striving corporate executives

Wrong-acting corporate executives

Good

Bad corporate results (e.g., poor planning; bad model)

Good-willed corporate executives

Good

Poor-striving corporate executives

Right-acting corporate executives

Right
Good corporate results (e.g., a booming industry)
Good-willed corporate executives

Badness as not
striving and
not wanting
to be right

Bad

Poor-striving corporate executives

Right-acting corporate executives
Bad corporate results (e.g., a stagnant industry)
Good-willed corporate executives

Good

Poor-striving corporate executives

Wrong-acting corporate executives

Wrong

Good corporate results (e.g., a booming economy & luck)

Good-willed corporate executives

Bad

Poor-striving but good motive corporate executives

Wrong-acting corporate executives
Bad corporate results (e.g., bad performance)
Bad-willed but good-striving corporate executives

Good

Right-acting evil corporate executives

Good corporate results (e.g., a malevolent success)

Right
Bad-willed but good-striving corporate executives

Goodness as
striving and
wanting to be
right

Bad

Right-acting corporate executives

Bad corporate results (e.g., a malevolent failure)
Bad-willed but good-striving corporate executives

Good

Wrong-acting corporate executives

Good corporate results (e.g., a fraudulent success)

Wrong
Bad-willed but good-striving corporate executives

Bad
Bad

Wrong-acting corporate executives

Bad corporate results (e.g., a fraudulent failure)
Bad-willed and bad-striving corporate executive

Good

But acting right with good corporate results

(e.g., a shrewd corporate success)

Right
Bad-willed and bad-striving corporate executive

Badness as not
striving and
not wanting
to be right

Bad

But acting right with bad corporate results

(e.g., a shrewd corporate failure)
Bad-willed and bad-striving corporate executive

Good

Acting wrong with good corporate results

(e.g., an immoral and wicked corporate success)

Wrong
Bad-willed and bad-striving corporate executive

Bad

Acting wrong with bad corporate results

(e.g., an immoral and wicked corporate failure)

Table 5.4: Normative versus Virtue-based Ethics for Corporate Executives

Dimensions

Normative Ethics

Virtue-based Ethics

Definition

The ethical Theory that bases the morality of

executive actions primarily in relation to
compliance to existing social and/or moral norms.

The ethical Theory that bases the morality of executive

actions primarily in relation to the moral virtuous
quality and predispositions of the executive agent.

Moral
Orientation

Search and conformity to the proper norm

Virtue-based ordered will and good-oriented choices

Predominant
Philosophy

Rule Utilitarianism: The rule of norm does not

express the intrinsic morality of the action but
only the reasonableness or rightness of a given
executive behavior that conforms to a given
moral or social norm.

Rule Ontologism: The rule of virtue-based ethics does

express the intrinsic morality of the action not in its
conformity to a given moral or social norm but by the
goodness of the executive agent whose moral virtues
prompted the given action.

Domain of
Moral Value

The moral rightness or wrongness of the

executive action that conforms to norms

The moral goodness or badness of the executive agent

and action

Domain of
Inquiry

Under what conditions does an executive action

become morally right or wrong?

Under what conditions does an executive action become

morally good or bad?

Objective
Source
(conditions) of
Moral Value

Legitimacy of the social or moral norm.

Fundamental moral goodness of the chosen action.

Fundamental rightness of the given norm.

Fundamental moral goodness of the choosing person.

Close conformity of the executive action to the

moral norm.

Fundamental goodness of the executive moral virtues

backing the action.

Rightness of the intended and unintended

consequences of the chosen action.

Goodness of the intended and unintended consequences

of the chosen action.

Right internalization of the norm.

Goodness of executive intentions that desire the action.

Subjective
Source
(conditions) of
Moral Value

Quality of executive freewill that chooses the action.

Right interpretation of the chosen norm.

Goodness of the intellectual moral virtues that prompt

the execution of the action: wisdom, prudence.

Rightness of the execution of the chosen norm.

Goodness of the executive volitive moral virtues that
prompt the execution of the action: Moral courage,
pertinacity, consistency, passionate commitment.
Objective
Source of
Moral Disvalue

Illegitimacy of the social or moral norm.

Fundamental moral evil of the chosen action.

Fundamental wrongness of the given norm.

Fundamental moral badness of the choosing person.

Close conformity of the executive action to the

wrong moral norm.

Fundamental badness of the executive moral vices

backing the action.

Wrongness of the intended and unintended

Badness of the intended and unintended consequences of

Subjective
Source of
Moral Disvalue

consequences of the chosen action.

the chosen action.

Wrong internalization of the wrong norm.

Badness of executive intentions that desire the action.

Quality of executive free will that choses the evil action.

Wrong interpretation of the chosen wrong norm.

Wickedness of the intellectual moral vices that prompt

the execution of the action: lack of wisdom, imprudence.

Wrongness of the execution of the chosen norm.

Wickedness of the executive volitive moral vices that
prompt the executive action: Moral cowardice, lack of
perseverance in seeking goodness and truth, in
consistency, passionate commitment for evil.
Expected moral
outcomes

Rightness of the moral norm.

Goodness of the choosing executive.

Conformity to the moral norm.

Goodness of the executive choice.

Rectitude of the conformity.

The agent and the organization becoming good.