Read the Case: Proctor and Gamble Goes Dumpster Diving then answer these questions:
a)Is dumpster diving an ethical way of acquiring information from a competitor? If companies do not take precautions, such as shredding vital documents, why should they be protected from prying eyes? Would it make a difference if the dumpster were on private property or on a public street?
b)Although John Pepper acted courageously in notifying Unilever, was his action morally required? In view of the reaction from Unilever, did he act wisely?
c)Is Unilever owed any compensation? What harm has the company suffered for which they should be compensated? [Note: Compensation is due only for harm done. Compare this case to compensating the owner of an automobile in a crash.]
d)Was Unilever overreaching, punishing P&G when its chairman had acted properly? Or is the idea of a monitor a creative solution to a difficult problem? [Note: The sole purpose of a monitor is to ensure that P&G does what Pepper promised, and the cost of the monitor would be inconsequential.]