You work in procurement for a large candy manufacturer. One of your main responsibilities is to locate cocoa plantations in Africa that can provide you cocoa at a reasonable price. (Cocoa is the main ingredient in chocolate.) You have found one supplier that can’t be beat; its product is always of high quality, while its prices are always lower than those of the competing plantations. 

One day, in accordance with company policy, you do a surprise inspection of the plantation. The inspection reveals that the reason its prices are so low is that it employs slave labor. The plantation owners traffic young men from neighboring countries against their will, do not pay them, do not allow them to leave the plantation, and make them work for endless hours under inhumane conditions. 

You are horrified by what you have found. Your first instinct is to end your company’s contract with the plantation. On reflection, however, you start to reconsider. Your performance as a procurement agent will certainly suffer without this plantation; if you can even replace this supplier, your costs will certainly go up and cocoa quality may suffer. And it won’t be just you that is hurt; if sales decline, the company’s workers and owners could also be hurt. Moreover, it dawns on you that if you stop buying from the plantation, you probably won’t hurt it at all. The chocolate industry is a tough one, and you are almost certain that one of your competitors will move in and start buying the plantation’s product. 

Use the weight-of-reasons framework to decide how to handle this situation. What options do you have? What are their expected outcomes, and what principles should you use to decide? Which stakeholders should count the most? Is it possible to come up with an option that is ethical and keeps costs low as well?