TABLE 4.1

1. TABLE 4.1 EDM CONSIDERATIONS: PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNINGS

2. TABLE 4.2 SNIFF TESTS FOR ETHICAL DECISION MAKING Would I be comfortable if this action or decision were to appear on the front page of a national newspaper tomorrow morning? Will I be proud of this decision? Will my mother be proud of this decision? Is this action or decision in accord with the corporation’s mission and code? Does this feel right to me?

3. TABLE 4.3 RULES OF THUMB FOR ETHICAL DECISION MAKING Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Disclosure Rule: If you are comfortable with an action or decision after asking yourself whether you would mind if all your associates, friends, and family were aware of it, then you should act or decide. The Intuition Ethic: Do what your “gut feeling” tells you to do. The Categorical Imperative: You should not adopt principles of action unless they can, without inconsistency, be adopted by everyone else. The Professional Ethic: Do only what can be explained before a committee of your professional peers. The Utilitarian Principle: Do “the greatest good for the greatest number.” The Virtue Principle: Do what demonstrated the virtues expected. Principle Source: A.B. Carroll, “Principles of Business Ethics: Their Role in Decision making and Initial Consensus,” Management Decision, 28:8 (1990): 20–24, see Figure 3

4. FIGURE 4.1 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING APPROACHES AND CRITERIA Profitable? Benefits > Costs Risk adjusted Consequences, Utility Fiduciary duty Individual rights Fairness, Legality Duty, Rights, Justice Character Integrity Courage Process Virtue Expectations AACSB EETF Report, June 2004

5. FIGURE 4.2 MAP OF CORPORATE STAKEHOLDER ACCOUNTABILITY Shareholders Activists Employees Governments Customers Corporation Creditors Suppliers Others, including the media, who can be affected by or who can affect the achievement of the corporation’s objectives Lenders

6. TABLE 4.4 FUNDAMENTAL INTERESTS OF STAKEHOLDERS

7. TABLE 4.5 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS: SHORT- AND LONG-TERM PROFIT IMPACT

8. FIGURE 4.3 STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION AND INTERESTS POWER LEGITIMACY Dynamic Influence URGENCY SOURCES:Mitchell, Agle, and Wood, 1997; Rowley, 1997.

9. TABLE 4.6 APPROACHES TO THE MEASUREMENT OF QUANTIFIABLE IMPACTS OF PROPOSED DECISIONS*

10. TABLE 4.7 STAKEHOLDERRIGHTS

11. TABLE 4.8 TRADITIONAL 5-QUESTION APPROACH TO ETHICAL DECISION MAKING

12. TABLE 4.9 TRADITIONAL MORAL STANDARDS APPROACH TO ETHICAL DECISION MAKING*

13. TABLE 4.10 PASTIN'S APPROACH TO STAKEHOLDER IMPACT ANALYSIS

14. FIGURE 4.4 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING APPROACHES 5-Question Pastin Philosophical Velasquez Max. Profit  Max. Utility (Benefits > Costs)  Max. Utility (Risk-adjusted)  Consequences, Utility Fiduciary duty    Individual rights   Fairness  Duty, Rights, Justice Character  Integrity  Courage  Process    Virtue Expectations See AACSB EETF Report, June 2004

15. TABLE 4.11 MOTIVATION, VIRTUE, CHARACTER TRAIT, & PROCESS EXPECTATIONS

16. TABLE 4.12 A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO EDM Consideration Description Well-offness The proposed decision should result in more or Consequentialism benefits than costs. Rights, duty The proposed decision should not offend the or Deontology rights of the stakeholders, including the decision maker. Fairness The distribution of benefits and burdens or Justice should be fair. Virtue expectations The motivation for the decision should reflect or Virtue Ethics stakeholders’ expectations of virtue. All four considerations must be satisfied for a decision to be considered ethical

17. FIGURE 4.5 STEPS TOWARD AN ETHICAL DECISION Proposed Decision Or Action Better Alternative? Final Decision Yes No Identify the facts Ethical Analysis Rank interests in importance Apply Comprehensive EDM Framework Using a Philosophical Approach: Consequentialism, Deontology & Virtue Ethics And/or Stakeholder Impact Assessment Plus Gap Analysis of Motivation, Virtues & Character Traits Identify Stakeholders, Their Interests, & The Ethical issues

18. FIGURE 1.1 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK Consequences, Utility Best Ethical Decision Duty, Rights, Justice Virtue Expectations AACSB EETF Report, June 2004