Ethical Reflection #2

In my opinion, I agree with Weinstock’s main point because systemic corruption will not be fixed solely on the values of one or many individual(s), but on other factors that begin with the culture of a company. Consequences for corruptive acts, whether it is done through a Code of Ethics or in person, must be constantly relayed in order for members of a company to know that corruption is not taken lightly, nor tolerated. If this is not done, employees—including the ones with a good moral compass—will find it easier to partake in corruptive acts since they do not know the repercussions of their actions. Although it is on a smaller scale, from my experience in working a part-time job I can also say that a corporate culture that is based around a “fun work environment” may not always result in less corruption, as I have seen many instances where employees, including managers, have done something that was not necessarily ethical. As a result, it made it harder for me to take them seriously, and eventually made me lose respect for them as well when they fired someone else for an ethical matter.
From the textbook and lectures, learning about the impact of corporate culture on a workplace, including a values-based culture, helped me understand Weinstock’s main argument. As I have previously mentioned, there needs to be a consistent culture of intolerance towards corruptive acts such as bribery, money laundering, etc., or even minor examples of making employees choose between keeping their job or making a corruptive decision that their boss is forcing them to make—which usually correlates with the two corruptive acts mentioned. Although a good-willed employee who knows right from wrong is important for a company to have, this will not create any long-term solution to solving corruption. Furthermore, as mentioned in our textbook, “good”