Assignment Task:
IOOF Holdings
The below report identifies key ethical issues of the IOOF case in relation to key Business Ethics theory and provides recommendations for IOOF to improve its ethical stance in relation to current ethical theory, principles, practices, and evidence.
The key issues identified in the IOOF case include;
1) Demonstrated immoral ethical behavior with insider trading, front running, training for compliance cheating, misrepresentation of performance and identified breaches, misappropriation of client’s funds to pay for errors.
2) Avoidance of IOOF in communicating errors and solutions with financial planners and clients, including reporting to APRA (Australia Prudential Regulation Authority) for proven insider trading.
3) Whistleblower protection not evident with whistleblowers fired for ethical stand and forced out of IOOF.
4) Conflict of interest for financial planners and IOOF due to vertical integration, including the direction of IOOF to use its own underperforming, produces, which is not in the best interest of clients.
Rationale
IOOF mismanagement of investor funds, misrepresentation of performance, conflict of interest with vertical integration of its products, and internal management of insider trading demonstrates immoral management (Carroll 2001). Culturally IOOF has developed into an organization that supports the above and seeks to limit whistleblowers by pushing them out of the organization (TsaHuridu & Vandekerckhove 2008). This is further evidenced by making minimal improvement in practice whilst working with APRA, lack open disclosure of errors, demonstrating immoral cultural norms via corruptive routine translations (Den Nieuwenboer, Da Cunha & Trevino 2017). Resulting in institutionalized immoral behaviour of staff to meet targets at all costs for personal gain (Den Nieuwenboer, Da Cunha & Trevino 2017).
IOOF demonstrated how internal corporate business ethics (including, ethics codes) are ineffective in managing ethical standards and that self-regulation does not work (Rhodes 2016, Stevens 2008). IOOF is performance orientated and employees are expected to do what it takes resulting in IOOF being autocratic via perverse incentives (Rhodes 2016), which resulted in conflict of interest from vertical integration of poor performing products. IOOF utilizes hard HRM practices (Greenwood 2002) that has led staff following the company line, as applying moral autonomy (Carroll 2001. Kant 2012) is not valued/encouraged, which resulted in impaired psychological contract due to thinning relationships with resultant whistleblowers being excluded from the workplace, reinforcing immoral behaviour of employees and managers (Bolton,Houlihan & Laaser 2012, Greenwood 2002). As IOOF is performance orientated and the culture has led to employees being expected to do what it takes to achieve goals, employees have become quiet in raising ethical issues in fear of exclusion or reduced bonuses. This is a direct result of an autocratic organization, creating self-interested
cultures due to corporate business ethics (Rhodes 2016). Under Carroll (1979) pyramid IOOF operated on the lowest level focused on economic performance. Despite being large company with implied social power (Carroll 1979) IOOF has not moved beyond economic performance and does not demonstrate obligations to society. IOOF currently is nonresponsive to sustainability concerns as their actions do not support social utility (Sandhu 2010).
Need Help Writing an Essay?
Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your paper.
Get Help Now!Welcome to Our Online Academic Writing Service. Our online assignment writing website provide various guarantees that will never be broken. No matter whether you need a narrative essay, 5-paragraph essay, persuasive essay, descriptive essay, or expository essay, we will provide you with quality papers at student friendly price.
Ask for Instant Writing Help. No Plagiarism Guarantee!
