Business Ethical Essay – British Airways (BA)
The ethical issues of the above case
The main ethical issue, in this case, is an unfair application of the stipulated superior service of affording complementary edibles, food, and drinks based on the flights of the short-haul economy. In contrast, the service was continued under the company’s City Flyer brand from London City Airport. Apparently, the airport happens to be a major hub for business travelers. This is referred to as double standards, and it is unethical as it levels the ground for discrimination among those who deserve equal treatment by the entity.
The relevant stakeholders in the case
The relevant stakeholders include the British airways’ authorities, the city Flyer brand staff, and customers of the British Airways as well as the City workers.
Proposed alternatives based on the three primary schools of ethics in the Babson Framework for Ethical Decision Making
Utilitarianism (Consequences)
Based on the case in question, the Consequentialist framework holds that any decision results in consequences whether they are good or bad. It would have been, therefore, prudent for the management of British Airways to diagnose the probable outcomes before determining the course of action in canceling the service of offering complimentary food and drink on short-haul economy flights and at the same time perpetuate the same service under the City Flyer brand from London City airport. This action angered some parties even as it excited the beneficiaries. Although, according to this framework, individual bad decisions can sometimes result in good outcomes and, therefore, beneficial to the people, and there are other right decisions that may end up causing more harm to the recipients than good (Maas & Palgrave, 2015). It all depends on the approach towards implementing whichever decision taken by the authorities and the motive of those taking action. British Airways may have contemplated the move as being useful to the involved stakeholders. Still, perhaps how the implementation was handled resulted in otherwise well-intended action appearing double standard. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
For this reason, the authorities of British Airways are supposed to reconsider the action and correct the mess to mitigate the possible long-term implication of this decision. This can be well done by first demystifying the reasons what motivated the management to make the decision and what could have been the possible expectations. The authorities should also explain how the administration intended to roll out the plan and the stakeholders who were required to be the immediate beneficiaries of the policy. Finally, the management has to explain measures that were stipulated to abate harming the other parties as a result of the decision (Arruda & Rok, 2016). If the decision had been made in the spirit of the Consequentialist Framework, perhaps there would be little or no lamentations from other significant stakeholders who got aggrieved.
The only limitation of this framework is that; however, much leadership would try to satisfy its subjects; there will always be some dissatisfaction. This implies that while one party is aggrieved about a certain action that was taken in an organization, there will be another party that is satisfied with the move. In other words, the probable consequences are usually antagonistic and can never be justified.
Deontological Ethics (Duty Framework)
Similarly, based on the Duty Framework, the situation at British Airways demanded that the management strictly considers the laid down rules and regulations as well as the regular routine before making any decision of this nature. The framework entails that the obligations, as well as duties that are inclined towards engendering certain outcomes in a given situation, have to be well vetted. In this case, the management of British Airways would have considered what ethical obligations it had and what things it should never have done regarding the situation (Maas & Palgrave, 2015). This is because ethical conduct is only defined well when those in authorities perform their duties and remain committed to doing the right thing. The goal of the management of any particular entity should be to show the correct action all the time it is needed to make a decision.
Although, in some cases, this framework may appear to be rigid as it focuses more on the ethical correctness and not on the benefits, it could have exonerated the management of the blame in which it plunged. Eventually, the outcome of the action could have annoyed some stakeholders, but the harm would not have been dire compared to what prevailed afterward (Arruda & Rok, 2016). More often than not, this framework is not driven by who should gain in the situation but whether the action was justified. Sometimes, those who make decisions based on the Duty Framework are never interested in the parties that should derive benefits from the decision but whether the decision can bear ethical justification.
This reality implies that in a given situation, the management should not act in a manner that likely suggests that it has vested interests or it favors a particular side. Strict adherence to this framework can help the administration eliminate the situation of conflict of interests in the future because it will remain impartial in all its decision-making processes (Arruda & Rok, 2016). At the same time, the framework encourages collaborative decision-making processes whereby the management is needed to consult all the relevant authorizes across the cadres before executing any policy for the good of every stakeholder.
The Virtue Framework
The Virtue Framework provides a platform where leaders demonstrate certain character traits that either positive or negative. In this case, the characteristics motivate the person and not just moral rules. British Airways, for instance, found itself on the receiving end because the action may have been executed by whose traits were not admirable to many of the stakeholders. This framework is ethical as it capitalizes on the characteristics of the leaders and whether they meet people’s expectations. In this case, the action taken in a given situation does not matter unless the implementer portrays admirable traits. The authorities of British Airways should, therefore, interrogate the features of the top management and determine if they conform to the expectations of the majority of the personnel and other stakeholders. According to Schwartz (2017), the problem with this framework is that it tends to encourage sycophancy among the staff in an organization. At the same time, certain leaders can devise ways of enticing other stakeholders with perks just to attract a popular opinion of them, an act that can be highly detrimental to the progress and productivity of the entity.
The most commonly used framework in the business world
Among the three structures highlighted, Virtue Framework happens to be the most frequently used in the business world. In this framework, people always attempt to identify the character traits and profile them either as positive or negative. Positive traits motivate personnel and other stakeholders in a given situation, whereas negative traits discourage them. Employees and clients are often concerned with the kind of leaders they should follow and what their actions indicate about their character traits. This is because ethical behavior is defined as whatever actions a virtuous person is obliged to do in a given situation. The definition is what prompts people to strive to develop similar virtues.
Evidently, the Virtue Framework is of great use, especially in the circumstances, which demand the kind of leader one should be. To be, the framework permits for a broad spectrum of a behavioral pattern that should be referred to as ethical, since there might be various kinds of good character and several paths that aim at developing it. Accordingly, the framework considers all sections of human experience, together with their significance in ethical deliberations (Schwartz, 2017). To be precise, the framework enhances the belief that all people’s emotions, experiences, and thoughts can largely influence the ultimate development of their respective characters.
The best example where this framework is mostly embraced is in the trade unions. Trade unions are based managed on virtue framework as members are often concerned about the traits of their leaders as opposed to the underlying regulations. Members believe that once they institute a virtuous leader in place, then even the underlying laws of the union will be well implemented, or the worse rules can also be properly amended. According to most people, the rule of law can only serve its purpose if the executor has virtuous traits; otherwise, a reckless leader can convolute even good laws to serve the wrong purposes.
Similarly, many business entities, especially those that offer services, rely heavily on leadership that is virtuous as opposed to mere recitals of rules. Healthcare facilities, educational institutions, and manufacturing firms, for instance, value moral leadership because they mainly deal with the rendering of services to their clients and not just products. This means they interact with people’s emotions and intellect, and therefore, the authorities must provide leadership that is anchored on virtues.
Even though the Virtue Framework considers some human experiences, it becomes an impediment when it comes to conflict resolution because it leaves ample room for disagreements regarding virtuous traits as opposed to ethical actions. Furthermore, since the framework is mainly keen on people’s character, it cannot sufficiently assist those in authorities to decide the suitable measures to execute in demanding circumstances. In the same breath, the framework makes it hard for leaders to precisely determine the correct rules and regulations that are necessary for guiding their actions. Finally, since it emphasizes on the significance of education about ethical behavior as well as role models, the framework may end up reiterating the present-day customary beliefs as the required standards of ethical behavior.