Abstract
In the 1990s, the U.S. Airforce had initiated the LCCV (Low-Cost Concept Validation) program for rocket launching technology. The LCCV program was launched by the Air Force to provide a fair competing platform between Space Company such As Boeing and Lockheed Martin. In early 1996, Lockheed Martin had an engineer named Kenneth Branch who was working on the EELV project. Boeing contrived with one of the Lockheed Martin's engineers who offered his company’s EELV project proposal presentation. As a result of leaked confidential and financial information for Lockheed Martin’s EELV proposal, Boeing quoted a lower price, thus winning the proposals.
Ethical Model Breaches
According to Jennings (2014), ethical breakdowns in corporate sectors have common features. In the case of Boeing military contract, the ethical breach may be described as Hobbesian self-interest. The ethical egoism and self-interest were the central factor in Boeing decision. More often, self-interest is associated with human nature. In the absence of effective laws to control self-interest, there would be chaos. For instance, it due to self-interest that Boeing illegally obtained the military space unit contract from its major competitor Lockheed Martin. Since the U.S. Airforce had initiated the LCCV (Low-Cost Concept Validation) program, Boeing demonstrated "fear and silence,” an ethical breakdown feature as given by Jennings (2014). The LCCV program was launched by the Air Force to provide a fair competing platform between Boeing and Lock Martin.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Also, the program was an initiative by the government to control ethical egoism and self-interest between the two companies. In this sense, both companies had to subscribe to this control through social contracts. On the contrary, Boeing conspired with one of the Lockheed Martin's engineers who offered his company’s EELV project proposal. Adam Smith moral sentiments add that self-interest would consume the world if not controlled by legal safeguards. Boeing Chairman acted rational and ignored that fraud is in one’s self-interest. Thus, Boeing and Lockheed Martin’s engineer thought that they could conspire on an illegal transaction and go ahead with business. Smith’s moral sentiments argue that although an illegal business can be done and closed, the pattern of self-behavior is short-term. As a result, at least for a time, such deals will be shunned. Though Boeing won the contract after the conspiracy, it was suspended from the military contracts. At this time, the suspension was a harsh punishment as Boeing was among the second largest military contractors.
Ethical Rationalizations
Similarly, business ethic rationalization can connect the misconduct of the Boeing space company. Boeing may have based their conspiracy deal on the social notion that an act is not wrong if it’s not hurting anyone. According to the Jennings (2014), business ethics codes, most of the inventors in the corporate sector does not invent on the "new moralities." Thus, the individual would only acknowledge the bits of the morality that favors and ignore those with no benefits. For instance, the Lockheed Martin’s engineer who leaked the EELV project proposal accepted to be hired by the competitor and ignored the part of good faith and justice to his employer. Additionally, the engineer breached the professional conduct of confidentiality. In the light of the moral law, the problem is not that leaking employer's contract proposal is wrong but he ignores the part of causing harm. Another ethical rationalization that applies, in this case, is "waiting until the lawyer says it's wrong." Though lawyers are depended upon to give an opinion that the action right or wrong, they only focus on the law violation rather than ethics. In the case of the Boeing contract, both parties waited for the U.S. Airforce to rule out their policy on the breaches of procurement integrity. In this sense, the engineer and Boeing space company ignore the opportunity to make wise and ethical choices. Though the Boeing chairman acknowledged that the company had erred, Pentagon was not satisfied that they would observe ethical standards and practices.
Social Responsibility on School of Thoughts
The school of thoughts on social responsibilities provides some of the ethical perspectives which guide businesses' as well as employees’ choices. Thus, through the available school of thought, it would be easy to determine to whom Boeing Company should, and Lockheed Martin's engineer be responsive to serve the best interest. In the light of inherent school of thought, Boeing executive should only respond to the interest of the shareholders. Therefore, the executive should not have been involved in breaching EELV contract integrity unless it was the best interest of the shareholders. However, the enlightened self-interest school of thought holds management response to the larger society. This means that even if managers are acting in the interest of the shareholders, they should observe the ethical code of conduct. Also, their actions should not offend any member of the society. In the Boeing military contract, the Chairman conspired with an external employee to serve the interest of the shareholders through winning the EELV contract. However, the Boeing Space Company failed to observe the moral standards guiding the society. As a result, the contract backfired costing the company as well as the interest of the shareholders. The invisible hand is another school of thought although it is the opposite of enlightened self-interest. According to this school of thoughts, business serves the larger through satisfying the interest of shareholders only. In this case, it is the role of government to set the standard that regulates the conduct of business behavior. In Boeing contract, it is the U.S. Airforce that sets the policies that govern the space procurement integrity. In a situation of conflict of interest in the space companies, it is this arm of U.S. Pentagon government that makes the ruling or sets the solution. For instance, Pentagon suspended the operations of Boeing Space Company and awarded the EELV contract to the Lockheed.
Applicable Ethical Models and Social Responsibilities
In the effort to avoid ethical misconduct, Boeing Company could have used several ethical modes and social school of thoughts. However, before adopting any ethical model, it is important to assess any signs of ethical collapse in the company. The first sign is “fear and silence” in the company culture. Boeing Company had already demonstrated this sign as it feared to lose a contract through an open contract with the competitor. Also, Boeing Company showed a sign of silence which is an ethical breakdown. If the executive’s spoke of the matter was handled to the Pentagon, the company has saved the cost and repercussions of suspension and losing the tender. On the contrary, utilitarianism was the suitable ethical model for the Boeing Company. Utilitarianism helps in solving the ethical dilemmas and balances the effort of the situation, thus minimizing the potential harm. Also, it is known as the greatest happiness principle as it maximizes the benefits of an ethical decision. Utilitarianism model would have helped Boeing Company in resolving the ethical dilemma of conspiring for an illegal transaction with an external employee. Nevertheless, the executives ignored the notion of utilitarianism that would have resulted to a mutual goodness to the shareholders and society at large. As a result, the Boeing’s success through ethical misconduct was short lived. Immediately after the contracts awards were announced, anonymously one of their employees disclosed the contract’s conspiracy. After the employee’s revelation of the stolen papers from Lockheed Martin’s EELV project, internal investigations were initiated. Further, Kant offers another aspect of ethical models in businesses ( O'Neill, 2013) . The philosopher argued in everything you do; you do not have to be fair but rather do what you want for the right reason. In the universal context, Kant did not embrace self-interest. In the case of Boeing Company, Kant would have argued that you do not have to avoid getting into an illegal contract because of you afraid of being caught. Thus, it would not have been a sufficient basis for ruling against Boeing ethical breaches. On the contrary, Kant would have wished Boeing to accept ethical standards because it does not want to use Lockheed Martin Company as a means of enrichment for their expense.
On the hand, Boeing Company would have used several social responsibilities to change an outcome of ethical misconduct. Michael Strong in his book “Be the Solution,” he addresses how people in business are joined by mutual goodness. Whereby, sellers are offering goods of good quality, and they are associated with the quality of the goods they provide. Michael Strong argues that in making the world a better place, people should be the solutions to other people problems. Therefore, the Boeing Company would have focused on a global flow of service and creating a positive win-win-win world based on love rather than fear ( Michael and Allington, 2014) . After corporate ramification, Boeing lost its EELV contracts entitlement. In response to the defense contracts, Boeing increased ethics training and other strong commitment to the legal conduct. According to the words of Michelangelo, Boeing was able to respond to the ethical criticism by creating ethical training.
References
Jennings, M. M. (2014). Business ethics: Case studies and selected readings . Cengage Learning.
O'Neill, O. (2013). Acting on principle: An essay on Kantian ethics . Cambridge University Press.
Pressley, Michael., & Allington, R. L. (2014). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching . Guilford Publications.
