5. How does the company treat its employees?
Based on the previous question mentioning how Barnes was wrongfully terminated for bringing the allegations into the light it is fair to say that Fannie Mae did not treat its employees well. Unless you were one of the managers who went along with the unethical accounting practices and receive large bonuses as a result of the unethical actions. Those employees were treated well because they did not defy what the organization was doing.
6. How does the company handle third-party ethics issues?
From what I personally feel in reading Jennings (2012) text is that the main issue with unethical behavior and actions was internal, and that any third party ethics would be handled as if they were an ethical organization. As that is the persona that they led everyone to see on the outside that they were highly ethical organization to the point of winning awards that they were highly ethical. However internal that obviously was not the case. So a third party ethics issue would be treated properly as to not let others know that they were conducting unethical practices. If they were to let third party ethics issues slide then this would tarnish their reputation for good ethics.
7. How charitable is the company?
The organization was charitable according to Jennings (2012) after their reinstatement they built relationships through their foundation the Fannie Mae Foundation, that was subsequently investigated by the IRS for violating the use of a charitable foundation for political purposes made donations to charities on this basis of the political contacts they were able to list on their applications for funding. So they are charitable but they are still dishonest in using their charities for unethical practices.
8. How does the company react when faced with negative disclosures?
The organization I feel reacted very defensively when face with negative disclosures because they knew they were conducting unethical and illegal accounting practices. They reacted poorly first by wrongfully firing Barnes and then not being forthcoming with information and owning up to what they did. Waiting until they were investigated to come clean. In my opinion they should have come clean and apologize provided the information taken their punishment. This is the ethical thing to do when caught doing unethical acts to then change ways and be a socially responsible organization.
After all of these question have been answered there is just more to answer by the reader and the writer that is: Would the model mean that Fannie Mae could be labeled an "honest" company? Why or why not? Please place any thoughts or opinions below in the comments.
Personal thoughts:
I feel that it still can not be labeled an honest company as the unethical accounting practices did occur and subsequently the fallout was that the individuals who were in Fannie Mae mortgages were the victims of the unethical accounting practices and since the crash of the housing market in 2008 I personally do not feel that they have as a company gained back the propriety respect of being labeled an honest company. This is just my opinion and my feelings on business ethics.
Jennings, M. (2012). Business ethics: Case studies and selected readings (7th ed.). Australia: South-Western, Cengage Learning.
No comments:
Post a Comment