Unequivocally, the case ‘Desperate Air Corporation’ (DAC) is a typical case of ethical lapse and flawed ethical judgment because Mr. Nash overlooked any health risks to be faced by future users of underdeveloped ocean property. The first core issue is about the reliability of full environment audit of ocean front property conducted by DAC. The second major concern is about the validation of presence of hazardous waste material as claimed by the female employee of DAC. Taking into consideration the aforementioned issues from an ethical and legal perspective, Mr. Nash should have initiated a comprehensive re-audit of ocean property after hearing rumors to verify the presence of radioactive medical waste. In case of confirmation of any serious danger at site, Mr. Nash should have also filed a lawsuit against the previous audit firm whose engineers and technical staff were lacking pertinent knowledge, qualifications, skills and authenticity. In addition, the DAC Vice President was also ethically responsible to present detailed findings of latest environment review of neutral audit firm in black and white to CEO Williams, thereby seeking his approval or denial for property deal. Since Mr. Williams was not informed about the environmental hazards for any reasons, Mr. Nash has committed a major ethical blunder that must have been avoided. Next, the Vice President should have also consulted any credible external lawyer for second input about legal clauses and ramifications of not disclosing presence of toxic waste under Florida law.
Indeed, Mr. Nash was ethically responsible for health and safety of all construction workers, employees, customers and general public that were subject to grave health risks at ocean property. With reference to Utilitarian ethical principle that propagates the welfare of greatest number of people, the health and safely of human beings is more important than survival of any cash-starved profit-making corporation that may create a few jobs but jeopardize several lives. In other words, Mr. Nash should have informed representatives of Fledgling Industries about poor credibility of past environment audits coupled with the problem of toxic spill, thereby providing them an opportunity to conduct an independent audit and decide in light of new findings.
However, Mr. Nash mistakenly decided to close deal with Fledgling that should be argued as an ethical lapse because it then became a deliberate attempt to avoid disclosure of any perceived financial and health implications. An ethical dilemma is about deciding between two right values; however, an ethical lapse is about choosing a wrongdoing over right action. Indeed, the ethical responsibility of a senior employee is to take decisions in favor of company, buyers and stakeholders. However, Mr. Nash only preferred securing business for DAC instead of protecting buyer’s interests and thus neglecting the health risks of future potential users of ocean property. On an ending note, Mr. Nash should have openly expressed his concerns over toxic spill problem with both DAC strategic planners and Fledgling officials as his core ethical responsibility without fearing about perceived financial repercussions and future consequences for cash-starved loss incurring DAC (Trevino & Nelson, 2010). This decision about open expression of truth and integrity also decreases the probability of any future legal war against DAC for intentional secrecy pertaining a sizeable business deal. In short, the decision about deal closure should have been left on shoulders of buyers who may or may not approve property purchase agreement.
Trevino, L. K. &. Nelson, K. A. (2010). Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk about How to Do it Right (5th ed.). John Wiley and Sons, Inc.