Introduction This case presents a conflict between professional obligations and ethical responsibility, reminiscent of the Satyam scandal where prioritizing profit led to fraudulent activities. The central ethical dilemma lies in choosing between truth and loyalty, jeopardizing a crucial business deal by truthfully testifying against the manager or protecting him despite his reckless driving, exemplified by the increasing number of hit-and-run cases highlighting the disregard for human life, and the deontological approach emphasizing moral duty irrespective of consequences, best addresses this situation.

Stakeholder Identification Myself (Manager of company A), Manager of company B, Motorcyclist, Company A, Company B, Law enforcement officer, and the Public.

Answers

What are the dilemmas you face?

1. Truth vs. Loyalty: Testifying truthfully (professionalism and rule of law) may damage the relationship with company B and jeopardize the deal (loyalty to my company's interests). This reflects a conflict of interest between personal integrity and professional duty.
2. Short-term gain vs. Long-term consequences: Protecting the manager might secure the deal (short-term private gain), but compromising my integrity could have long-term repercussions for my conscience and career (loss of integrity). This embodies the dilemma of public good vs. private gain.
3. Justice for the victim vs. Professional obligations: Remaining silent would be a dereliction of duty as a responsible citizen and deny justice to the motorcyclist (violation of rights), while speaking up could harm my company (duty vs. morality). This highlights social injustice and the tension between professional ethics and personal morality.

What will be your response to the situation?

1. Immediate Action: Provide immediate assistance to the injured motorcyclist, ensuring he receives medical attention (upholding the right to life and demonstrating due diligence). This reflects the utilitarian approach by prioritizing the well-being of the most affected party.
2. Testify Truthfully: Provide an honest account to the law enforcement officer, irrespective of the potential consequences for the deal (rule of law and integrity). This aligns with the deontological approach by fulfilling a moral duty regardless of outcomes, upholding justice, and preventing further social injustice.
3. Transparency with the Company: Inform my superiors about the accident and my decision to testify truthfully (transparency and professionalism). This addresses potential conflict of interest and demonstrates virtue ethics by acting with honesty and courage.
4. Explore Alternative Solutions: After fulfilling my ethical obligations, explore alternative ways to salvage the deal with company B, emphasizing the long-term benefits of ethical conduct (professionalism and due diligence). This could involve renegotiating terms or exploring other avenues for collaboration, ensuring that public welfare is not sacrificed for private gain.
5. Advocate for Road Safety: Following the incident, actively advocate for stricter enforcement of traffic laws and road safety awareness campaigns within my company and the wider community (promoting public good and preventing future injustice). This aligns with the justice approach by working towards a fairer and safer society, similar to initiatives like the amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act in 2019 to enhance road safety.

Conclusion

This case highlights the importance of prioritizing ethical considerations over short-term gains. The incident underscores the potential for conflict between professional duties and moral responsibilities. Real-life examples like whistleblowers exposing corporate misconduct demonstrate the long-term benefits of upholding integrity. The ethical way forward involves fostering a culture of ethical decision-making within organizations, implementing robust internal reporting mechanisms, and promoting ethical leadership to ensure that professionalism and the rule of law are prioritized over private gain, ultimately contributing to the public good.