Case on Harvey Weinstein

This case is about the misconduct of Harvey Weinstein towards several women, connected to his
profession. The alleged violations rise a clear ethical issue as this man did not follow a proper business
and personal individual conduct taking its roots in morality, which we will examine in the following line.

1) In the first lecture, you discussed ethical theories and what makes actions right/wrong.
Why was it wrong of that person to (try to) abuse women? Base your judgment not on
common knowledge but on moral arguments.

To define properly morality, we will use Emmanuel Kant’s definition of what is right from
Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your
own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same
time as an end.”

Based on this morality principle, it was wrong to abuse these women as:

 Harvey did not respect himself and his body (considered as sacred by Kant) when he decided to
try to abuse the victims.
 Harvey did not treat these human beings as his own person, since we can assume he would not
have liked to be abused himself.
 Harvey took advantage of these women and considered them as a mean to an end, his own
pleasure, therefore he violated the principle of consideration of humanity as an end.

Finally, based on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics defining the right way of behaving, the virtue, Harvey did
not behave in a way stakeholders and the community would approve for the well-being of all. Indeed,
doing this is against the “right middle” between excess and scarcity of something: Harvey was excessive
when he tried to violate these women.

To conclude, we have proven these alleged acts are wrong in any modern community as they
violate the principles of good behavior and respect of humanity.

1
2) Why can this case be considered a BE case?

A business ethics case is when there is a question of what is right or wrong in the business
environment and doing what is right – following norms, values and ethical practices – regarding the side
effects of such decisions on all stakeholders. These ethics are designed by and applies to individuals,
organizational statements or the legal system. That is why leaders should remain attentive to ethics and
sensitize themselves on how to morally act in the workplace without harming stakeholders. Looking at an
example of the workplace, according to P&G Worldwide Business Conduct Manual, the company must
ensure a “safe and secure work environment” where every violation, physical or else, is not tolerated.
Every case is evaluated by the Ethics & Compliance Committee (multifunctional team composed of CxOs,
the top management) and a specific number is available to signal any threat or danger.

Considering Weinstein case, Harvey is a leader, as he is the CEO of the Weinstein Company, and that
all the alleged violations took place in the workplace as meetings primary dealt with professional matters,
involving actresses working for this company. By violating norms that prevail in the workplace with these
incidents, Harvey did not morally act according the aforementioned criteria and could have been
condemned by a corporate committee, if there had been one. Direct & undirect stakeholders, and more
specifically employees, partners, coworkers, consumers etc. have been affected by the choice of
assaulting these women that had a negative on PR (Public Relations), due to such a large-scale scandal
(#MeToo).

3) Behavioral ethics addressed psychological and social factors that can explain (but not
justify) why people make wrong decisions. Can you identify two factors that can explain
why Harvey behaved wrongly?

According to Harvard, “behavioral ethics is the study of systematic and predictable ways in which
individuals make [un-]ethical decisions”.

Two factors can explain why these sexual assaults happened. First, there was an external effect due
to the shady Hollywood business environment: “political” relationships among people trying to gain
reputation at any expense, unbalanced ratio of power, linked with considerable gaps in terms of
remuneration, and even more. Such an environment built upon power dominance led Harvey to follow

2
the lead of other influencers who behaved wrongly in the past, as suspected by some media. This is a case
of institutionalized bias.

Second, there was an internal effect, from within the Weinstein company, where an environment of
“laissez-faire” and impunity was institutionalized as an understandable norm for all employees and
witnesses of daily violations of BE. It was socially acceptable to climb the social ladder by allowing
breaches in BE, and possibly it was considered as a win-win situation to exchange some professional help
with unacceptable perks. Perhaps Harvey has been influenced by organizational pressures as well as the
other potential witnesses from the company has been pressured by this halo not to talk.

4) What may make this case also a CSR case? Where are the differences between BE and
CSR in this context?

CSR helps companies be conscious about the impact on all aspects of society and all stakeholders,
may it be social, economic, environmental or political impact. It examines the right way to behave and
take decisions in order to benefit society in a large sense, even if sometimes it means saying no to some
personal desires. That is why this is also a social responsibility infringement case as Harvey put his own
wants before the sake of the society i.e. all these women, but on the other side there was an incredible
side effect, as it allowed the liberation of the many men’s and women’s speech.

However, there are a few differences between BE & CSR. In some cases, even if most companies
try to avoid it, a commitment to be socially responsible leads to unethical acts. As states Friedman: “There
is one and only one social responsibility of business: to use its resources and engage in activities designed
to increase its profits as long as it stays within the rules of the game”, which means that CSR is also about
growing the company even if the actions taken individually are unethical. In that context, Weinstein
Company has been negatively impacted by not protecting CSR interests in the managerial decision-
making, since consequences were immediate and on the long term on profit. Whereas the BE point of
view underlines the negative effect on stakeholders by widely and indirectly promoting that unethical
behavior in the movie productions.