1. Who are the stakeholders involved and how severely are they impacted? Who is harmed and by how much?

a. Market Stakeholders: (1) Employees of the animal facility: The current employees of the animal facilities will no longer feel at risk doing day-to-day operations, when dealing with animals, due to the proposed bill. High Impact (2) Employee Managers of the animal facility: The managers of the employees will no longer have to worry about company policies being recorded for lawsuits, reducing the stress on the managers. High Impact (3) Stockholders: Stockholders of the animal facility will no longer have to worry about the company having to pay large court fees and litigation expenses due to lawsuits of unethical behavior because of pictures or videos of poor treatment of animals. Medium Impact (4) Customers: Customers will realize lower prices for the meat produced at the animal facilities due to the lower amounts the business will be spending on lawsuits. Medium Impact. (5) Suppliers: Suppliers to the animal facilities will also face lower risks of being sued for animal cruelty due to the proposed bill. High Impact (6) Retailers/wholesalers: Retailers of the finished goods will still be able to sell the finished meat products to customers. Low Impact. Creditors: Lower risk of lawsuits will lower the risk of the business not being able to pay its bills. Medium Impact.
b. Non-Market Stakeholders: Communities: higher risk of animal cruelty taking place at the animal facilities, and could cause strain on communities. Low Impact. Nongovernmental organizations: agencies looking out for the protection of the animals at the facilities will no longer be able to take pictures or videos of the improper treatment of the animals. High Impact. Media: the media will have to take extra caution before filming around these types of facilities. Low Impact. Business Support Groups: this bill will help the business support groups. Medium Impact. Governments: if the bill is passed, animal support groups will retaliate and take measures to get rid of the bill. Medium Impact. The General Public: social values of preventing cruelty to animals will be ignored. Low Impact.

2. What are the central ethical issue(s) and the relevant facts in this case?
a. Central Ethical Issue(s): (1) Could lead to greater occurrences of animal cruelty in these types of facilities. (2) Could lead to higher distrust and anger against these animal facilities. (3) Risks loss of employees who would like to see greater amounts of protection for the animals.
b. Relevant Fact(s): (1) The bill will make it tougher to bring about lawsuits of animal cruelty. (2) If the bill passes other states may look to amend similar bills.

3. RESULTS: To what extent do (should) the results of the action produce more benefits than costs to stakeholders in the short and long range?

a. The proposed bill will greatly reduce the amount of lawsuits brought upon these types of animal facilities due to lower amounts of proof of animal cruelty. Without photo, or audio proof cases will not be strong for the side opposing the animal cruelty. This will positively impact the profitability of the animal facilities.
b. With lower costs that the animal facilities will be putting in to disputing lawsuits and other criminal fines they will be able to sell their products at a lower price. This will allow them to be more competitive and will also benefit the customers with lower food prices.

4. RULES: To what extent do (should) the rules followed to achieve results respect the rights of others and adhere to standards of justice and fairness? Are appropriate duties and obligations fulfilled and properly prioritized? (Current 2, Desired 6)

a. Rights: the bill lowers the rights of the whistle-blowers to have the ability to report animal cruelty, and to have the proof of pictures or audio to support their claim.
b. Justice: If animal cruelty is in fact occurring in these facilities justice will not be easy to come by due to the lack of evidence of the animal cruelty. This will affect the animals, and the employees who are against animal cruelty.
c. Fairness: It is not fair to the animals and the customers to have this bill protect the animal facilities

5. CHARACTER: To what extent is (should) the character of affected stakeholders enhanced? Are intellectual, moral, social, emotional, and political virtues (readiness to act ethically) being cultivated or corrupted? Are individuals becoming better persons through this transaction/relationship? (Current 2, Desired 6)

a. Personal Character: This bill will put additional strain on any employee working at the animal facilities. The employee will know that any act of animal cruelty will no longer have the possibility of being recorded and used against him or her in a lawsuit. This will weaken the character of the employee because they may try to find additional ways to make their work easier and breaking more rules/laws.
b. Group Character: As a group, with this bill in place, employees working in these types of animal facilities will suffer a weakened character. Together they may look to find easier ways to cut corners to get the job done easier and sooner. This will result in poor views of the employees from people outside of the organization.
c. Leadership Character: As a government agency the Minnesota House and Senate have the duty to protect the laws of the United States. Passing this bill will reduce the freedom of potential whistle-blowers to report the occasions of animal cruelty to the authorities.

6. CONTEXT: To what extent are (should) the intra-organizational and extra-organizational contexts (barrels) supportive of ethical conduct? (Current 3, Desired 7).

a. Intra-organizational context: The proposed bill indicates that there are problems with the rules set up at the animal facilities that do not actively try to prevent the act of animal cruelty. It indicates that these types of rules either do not exist, or are not being properly followed and enforced by the facilities.
b. Extra-organizational context: The proposed bill, being so highly favorable toward the mistreatment of animals, could demonstrate the ability of the animal facilities to manipulate the government officials. One possible way this could occur is through the help of lobbyists in favor of the animal facilities.

7. (JUDGMENT INTEGRITY CAPACITY DECISION) Is there justification for improving the inclusiveness and balance of the current judgment?

There is justification for improving the inclusiveness and balance of the current judgment.

8. What are two alternative resolutions for the case, with their advantages and disadvantages?

a. Resolution A: With the bill being passed, but stricter guidelines could be placed on the animal facilities. This will satisfy the bill by outlawing the video and audio of the inside of the animal facilities, but will also reduce the amount of animal abuse at these locations. Government officials who visit the facilities enforcing these stricter guidelines will make this possible, and if they observe any animal abuse they can fine the facility for each occurrence. The benefits of this resolution would be less animal cruelty in the animal facilities and strict penalties if this cruelty does occur. The severity of the fine/punishment would depend on the severity of the offense, but initially the fine should be pretty severe in order to set an example for the rest of the facilities. The downside of this resolution would be more government officials and outside sources would be brought in and employed to regulate this issue, adding costs and manpower.
b. Resolution B: The bill is passed, and regulations in the animal facilities continue as they were before the bill was passed, less the video and audio recording. The benefits of this resolution would be no additional people would need to be hired to come in and inspect the facilities, thus saving the government and companies’ money. The downside to this resolution would be, with no legal audio and video proof of this cruelty, the frequency of the unethical acts would probably increase with the workers and companies knowing that although what they are doing is unethical, legally they are protected.
9. What is your proposed resolution? What are your moral justifications for the resolution? To what extent will it enhance judgment integrity capacity?

Resolution A is the preferred and proposed resolution.
a. Comprehensive Moral Justification: The moral justifications for the resolution are the following: (1) Results: there are more benefits than costs to Resolution A in the long run because it comprehensively counters impulses to perform unethical behaviors in regards to animal cruelty by expanding the results expected for appraisal and reward to include benefits to multiple stakeholders; (2) Rules: Resolution A requires explicit statement of standards of agricultural honesty and provides a policy for reporting unfair practices, thereby clarifying explicit rules and improving the chances of right and fair sales transactions in the future; (3) Character: Resolution A takes the step to heal the wounds to group character inflicted by animal cruelty through community-building, character education training that commends virtuous, trustworthy conduct and raises the level of rewarded cooperation between and among employees; (4) Context: through the ethics audit and ethics commendations the company can measure and motivate its system moral progress and signal that moral integrity is important to protect the reputational capital of the firm. These practices would be investigated and swiftly, fairly adjudicated so that employees in the company would know that unethical conduct is penalized and ethical conduct is commended and expected.
b. Benefits of Resolution: Resolution A will directly enhance judgment integrity capacity by comprehensively, simultaneously and realistically addressing moral results, rules, character, and context to protect the company’s reputational capital for sustained competitive advantage, domestically and globally.
10. How will your resolution be implemented, evaluated, and improved over time?
a. Resolution Implementation and Evaluation Processes: Resolution A could be implemented through external officials not affiliated with the animal facilities coming in on unannounced visits to see how the operations are going. They would enforce a comprehensive ethics system, beginning with an organizational ethics needs assessment to identify and prioritize perceived ethics needs and a structured ethics-training program to address the prioritized issues. Resolution A would be evaluated by monitoring progress in ethics needs assessments, results of ethics training, and results of ethics audits over time, as well as evaluations of the “officers” making the unannounced visits. Sharing the success of the approach with industry, professional associations, as well as, community and customer audiences would further invite feedback for ongoing evaluation.
b. Resolution Improvement Processes: Resolution A will be improved through regular structured feedback, corrective actions taken when (statistically) warranted, and continual openness shown to incremental and/or breakthrough progress recommendations. Suggestions for improvement would be regularly solicited from government leaders in the department of animal rights, and incorporated as warranted. Resolution A impacts will be coordinated with other organizational assessment and improvement efforts to promote ongoing business moral progress.