Big Brother at Proctor & Gamble Chapter Case

Big Brother at Proctor & Gamble

OMM640: Business Ethics and Social Responsibility

Dr. Caroline Howard

October 22, 2012

Big Brother at Proctor & Gamble

1. Was P&G justified in investing its own employees in order to find the source of a suspected leak? Do you agree with Artz that a company has a right to protect its secrets? Does this right depend on the kind of information that a company seeks to protect? Yes, P&G was justified in investigating its own employees in order to find the source of a suspected leak. Yes, I agree with Artz that a company has a right to protect its secrets, but depending on the kind of secrets. I can recall when I started to work for my first employer; I signed an employee agreement that I would not disclose any company information to the press or anyone that was not an employee. The organization had staff that communicated with the press and media. I think that depending on the kind of secrets that the organization has. For example Coca Cola would not want their secret formula for the cola leaked, if there was a leak in the White House, giving away classified information to other countries the government would seek within the White House to find the source of the leak. Organizations and government bodies have a right to have secrets as long as they are ethical.

2. If P&G had the right to investigate, is there a limit to the steps it can take? Suppose P&G had searched only the company’s own telephone records or confined its search to home telephone records of P&G employees. Would the company have kept within permissible limits? Yes, there would be a limit to steps that P&G could take during investigating. P&G could search through the company’s own telephone as well as company cellular phones, but P&G would not have been able to search employee’s home telephone records. According to Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, the federal law prohibits unauthorized...