Ethical Decision Making in Business

Questions: 1. Does Craig appear to be doing anything wrong? Explain your response.2. Are threre any ethical issues involved here? If so, identify them. Answers: 1. Craig is one of the two stakeholders who are in an advantageous position both personally as well as financially because though he is not doing anything legally but he is making relative contributions that are not legal in a partnership business. However, being a partnership firm which as just commenced there is a high variability that most human endeavours may force the business which will not only challenge the cooperative spirit but will also lead to volatile combination of money and emotion (Thompson 2016). Although, as seen there is brief understanding between the two stakeholders that is Craig and Micelle but Craig is taking undue advantage of Micelles trust because his capital contribution has reduced from $60,000 to $20,000 as compared to Micelle whose capital contribution remains the same that is $50,000. Nevertheless, Craig is aware of his capital contribution in the firm but does not know that his reduction in capital contribution will still receive him more profit than Michelle. Though, in this partnership firm both partners contribute equally and are rewarded against the same capital contribution. Exceptionally it would be better if they share the profits equally such that the interest could be paid on the remaining capital balance to Michelle to avoid any partnership disputes (Bolden-Barrett 2016). Craig as a business partner is cheating on the other partner Michelle as he is committing a fraud because Craig and Michelle have come into business while believing that the other partner will be loyal and trustworthy. However, they have termed to be creditors who have put their capital contribution in the business. In this case, the partnership is in a case of Limited Liability Partnership where the law can be devoid if a fraud is committed when one of the partners poses the attributes of cheating (Morse 2010). However, Michelle is known by the fact that Craig has been withdrawing his capital contribution and contributing the money on a personal asset which means that Michelle is known by the fraud carried out by Craig. Nevertheless with this fraudulent act of Craig, either Craig could be told to reduce his capital contribution as mentioned earlier or the personal asset will now have no exclusive right on the assets and the asset will be reduced to share along with Michelle as the p roperty will turn into proprietary of the firm (Tricker 2015). 2. Michelle and Craig are its initial stage of partnership However, there is a need that the research partnership is decided based on the focus of the research. However, they follow shared decision making that not only highlights the transparent justification but also to follow the correct policies and procedures followed at the initialisation of the partnership agreement (Baker, 2012). Ethical partnership is maintained potentially on a streamlined processing. On the other hand, the two ethical issues that can lead to ethical concerns are given as: 1) Perceived disparity between contribution and reward The disparities between partners can arise when the partners are on the different question. However, the issue lies in the perception of the true reality (Mertens and Ginsberg 2009). 2) Breakdown in trust and respect Here, the main concern lies in the relationship trust and loyalty between the two factors which is at stake. However, if Craig carries on with this behaviour, this may erode the foundation of the business. Moreover, at last, the partnership cold even breaks down. Win Over Partnership Disputes Ironically, the partnership can win over disputes only if lands on success. However, disputes can be avoided on the following risks that could be avoided. 1) Each partner should have a brief understanding of the roles, expectations, responsibilities and the constructive discussion that could change over time. 2) The strengths and weaknesses of the partners should neither be underestimated nor overestimated (Fraedrich, Ferrell and Ferrell 2013). 3) The common vision should be established as both the partnership in this case, Michelle and Craig should share and revise business proceeds. The document vision should not arises the sense of dispute on the question of self-accomplishment first and then the business accomplishment (Thompson 2016). 4) The partnership should be inclusive of all issues under control by keeping an open as well as inclusive partnership that should possess the cliques of partnership and should not reflect lack of trust. However, Craig and Michelle should trust in a partnership as without trust there is no success for the business to proceed (Raftesath and Fitzgerald 2014). Conclusion To conclude, it can be said that there is need of trust and loyalty that is required to sustain the partnership. However, the role of success of partnership is only achieved if Craig does not withdraw his capital contribution anymore and even if he does, he needs to make a fair deal and deny the unjust profit he is receiving. However, disputes can be avoided if there is transparency, borne with key idea of success, sharing the profits and enhancing the weaknesses of the partnerships. References Baker, M. 2012.Choosing ethical partners: one institutions efforts to engage in ethical partnerships. acen.edu.au. Available at: https://acen.edu.au/2012conference/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/142Choosing-ethical-partners.pdf [Accessed 21 May 2016]. Bolden-Barrett, V. 2016.Partnership Ethics. Yourbusiness.azcentral.com. Available at: https://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/partnership-ethics-16406.html [Accessed 21 May 2016]. Fraedrich, J., Ferrell, L. and Ferrell, O. 2013.Ethical decision making in business. Mason, OH: South-Western. Mertens, D. and Ginsberg, P. 2009.The handbook of social research ethics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Morse, G., 2010.Partnership law. Oxford University Press. Raftesath, D. and Fitzgerald, M., 2014. How healthy is your relationship with your business partners?.Australian veterinary journal,92(3), pp.N16-N16. Thompson, P. 2016.Partnership Disputes. thompsonlaw.ca. Available at: https://www.thompsonlaw.ca/pdf_folder/Partnership_Disputes.pdf [Accessed 21 May 2016]. Tricker, R.B., 2015.Corporate governance: Principles, policies, and practices. OUP Oxford.