Ziqitza Health Care Limited (ZHL)
Responding to corruption
By: Chelsie Brantley
Course: BUAD 625: Organizational Leadership and Ethics
October 13, 2014
Sweta Mangal, CEO and co-founder of Ziqitza Health Care Limited (ZHL), an Emergency Medical Service (EMS) must decide how to respond to an official insisting that ZHL bribe him in order for him to release payment for ambulance services ZHL has provided. Mangal is confronted by a newly hired financial officer, Sanhay Rafati, who argues that if the bribe is not paid his office, will not be able to make payroll or maintain its ambulances, and that the ...view middle of the document...
* ZHL- Benefits by upholding the ethical standards that’s part of its DNA and investor strategy (Benefit)
* ZHL has exercised their right to uphold the personal values of the founders.
* ZHL is harmed by having to take out a loan with a high interest rate, which in turn will lower profits and may not be financially sustainable, long-term harms ZHL
* Government Official- Has yet to be affected, but will benefit if ZHL decides to pay the bribe by getting rewarded to do his job.
* Patients –are benefiting from gaining access to ZHL’s life saving service.
* Patients –are also harmed by ZHL not being able to maintain their ambulances if bribe is not paid
* Acumen- Benefits by the profit and the added value of promoting an ethical society.
* Society benefits by ZHL refusing to pay the bribe as India fights to eliminate bribery and corruption as a way of life.
Alternative Courses of Action
CEO Sweta Mangal is faced with a decision to make that will affect the company, Ziqitza Healthcare Limited. After analyzing the case, we came up with a series of alternatives. Although bribery is considered the “norm” in India, we still have to take in consideration the ethical theories to analyze the case. First of all alternatives, would be to decline payment for the bribe to the government official. This alternative addresses the ethical issues such as conflict of interests and use of corporate resources. It would be a conflict of interest if the company blatantly accepts the bribe from the government official for financial gain. By the company declining, they would be ridding themselves of any form of conflict of interest. This alternative would also be ideal because it would expel the “dishonest” use of corporate funds for company benefits. This mainly addresses the use of corporate resources issue.
On the other hand, ZHL can accept the offer by the government official to make the payment in order for the company to stay afloat financially. This decision can be argued both ways by saying that this is a completely selfish decision versus completely selfless decision. If accepted, ZHL will not have to worry about taking out any loans for payroll and in the same token, they will be able to provide more care to the general public and possibly save more lives. In regards to accepting the offer, this would confront the Corporate Social Responsibility ethical dilemma. Corporate social responsibility involves the company keeping the public health and safety in mind and acting accordingly. As stated above, if accepted for “selfish” reasons this can be regarded as a conflict of interest.
The first two alternatives were explicitly stated in the case as well. However, there are other alternatives that ZHL can explore. Unlike the more direct alternatives, our final alternative involves speaking out against bribery in attempts to rally support in the community....