HELP ME TO MAKE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0INTRODUCTION TO COMPANY

Compass Group PLC currently is a world-famous and giant food and support services company. This company was founded in 1941 in the United Kingdom as "Factory Canteens Ltd". Since then, the company going through the successful year by year by keep improving its expertise until becoming a world-famous company in the food and support services industry. Currently, Compass has created numerous collaborations with other big-name companies such as Eurest, ESS, Medirest, and many others. Compass with their collaboration lists very takes serious action in order to achieve success and meet a better future together with implementing a high standard of work-habits, professionalism, responsibility, etc.

However, in 2005, Compass Group subsidiary, ESS have won contracts to provide food to UN peacekeepers in Liberia. Then, UN take an action by suspended Compass because of allegations of contract bidding irregularities. ESS was accused that they improperly receive confidential information about the contracts that supply food and water to peacekeepers in Liberia. According to unknown resource, ESS obtained the confidential information from Alexander Yakovlev, HIC procurement officer which the contracts reach $62m. That is the reason on why the company have won the contracts. Moreover, it also provides confidential information about ESS's poor performance on a contract. This situation allows ESS to improve its performance before they lost the contract to their rivals.

This scandal was broken after Yakovlev guilty that had taken $1m bribes from companies by doing business with the UN. The UN officials that involved with Yakovlev is Vladimir Kuznetsov, head of UN Committee for Administrative and Budgetary Issues. Both of them was being arrested. Later on, Compass fired the director of its division in the United Kingdom and two other staff as the inquiry progressed. Compass said that the team members had been fired but did not publicly state how many. The inquiry was undertaken by the law firm Freshfields and the accountants Ernst & Young and was supervised and eventually headed by the audit committee of Compass, Steve Lucas.

Furthermore, Compass were facing legal charges where the company involved in bribing a UN official to win contract that reach millions of pounds of income to supply UN peacekeepers. The two rival food companies, Es-Ko and Supreme Foodservice alleged that Compass had led an illegal action in order to meet the tender of UN contracts worth in excess of $350 million to provide food to peacekeeping forces all over the world especially in Sudan, East Timor, Liberia, Burundi, Lebanon, Cyprus, and Syria. The long-standing controversy based on the accusation that five senior executives of the Compass subsidiary, Eurest Support Services (ESS), had bribed a UN official to obtain the contracts.

After three-month internal inquiry, Compass had reported that it had found "serious irregularities" in its UN sector, but that they were limited to "only a few individuals" who had been dismissed: Peter R. Harris, Andy Seiwert and Doug Kerr. Mr Harris, who was at that stage the head of the British, Middle East and African branches. Although Compass declined to make its investigation public, Michael Bailey, CEO, resigned in June 2006. The Eurest Support Services subsidiary was quickly restructured and reformed in accordance with a new business model. At the end of conflict, in October 2006, Compass had agreed to pay up to 40m in order to settle two cases brought against it for supposedly bribing a UN official to secure catering contracts. The Compass Company did not claim any civil responsibility and paid a secret fee of 40m in the area.

2.0DISCUSSION

a.Ethical awareness

Ethical awareness can be defined as the willingness and ability to identify moral, ethical contexts and dilemmas as an individual or group. The consequences of either ethical or unethical action having the critical examination, evaluation, and analyzing as individual or group action towards others. Many ethical issues hat been mention in this complex business environment.However, most of the company does not give their commitment on this issue's seriousness. Code of ethics can be said as the hallmark of profession all also for the company in the industries. Hence, the organization supposed to make their obligation to develop and implement their codes of conduct and ethics that are according to the organization's core values.

Based on the report, Compas Group is being charged to illegal have the 62 million dollars, three-year contract classified material to provide food and water to the peacekeepers in Liberia. On another report, over the past five years, Compas Group bribed the Alexander Yakovlev, with nearly 1 million dollars. To illegally get the document for its Eurest Support Services (ESS) division. From this paragraph, we could highlight the ethical issues that related to bribery that is led to other principle and theory being broken. It is a principle of equal liberty and principle of justice.

Bribery is the action of offering or accepting something of value for influence or action in return, that the receiver would or else not alter (Henry Campbell black, 2015). Bribery is characterized by a Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any valuable item. To influence the actions of an officer or other person in charge of a public or legal duty. (Henry Campbell black, 2015). Based on these two citations, Eurest Support Services (ESS) can be defined as the giver in this scandal to receive the three-year contract classified material. As the UN Procurement Officer, Alexander Yakovlev receiving 1 million dollars that is influence his actions to break the UN code of conduct obligations. Both of this offering and accepting action that be known as bribery is a proof of unethical action by both parties.

Compas Group unethical action giving bribe to Un Procurement officer must change the market situation. The market becomes uncompetitive since Compas Group does not need to compete with others. Instead, this unethical action has removed all the opportunities for it is The Switzerland-based Supreme, and ES-KO of Monaco to take part in the UN food supply contract.Instead of a free market to compete, Compas Group has become a monopoly bidder in this contract. Also broken the principle of justice, an equality and opportunity to all company participation fairly for UN food contract were being violated by the Compass Group. The Compas Group induces the UN procurement official to violate his moral obligation to act in his individual best interests.

As in business ethics, Compas Group moral standard that has been applied in their business institutions to win the contract is wrong. the Compas unethical action to decide bribery as a decision for the contract also unreasonable. As the world's largest catering group and could be justified as the market leader in the industry, Compas Group aim of ethics in their business is to develop a body of moral standards to be followed.It also can be a guide to be implemented by all the employees and executive to carefully decided and justified the action to be applied in all business situation.

In the world of business, there is the conflict for Compas Group between its self-interest to gain more profit or following its business ethics moral standard.By following the moral standard, it will decreases Compas group probability to win the contract. In this cases Compas Group chooses profits gain over ethics. However, this unethical action in business practices to gain more profits is not good for Compas in a long term. As an example, the unethical action has led for Compas Group to be suspended to have further contract bidding with UN. This suspended will make Compas to lose their future profit. Also, Compas Group need to have paid the Compensatory justice for both competitors for their loses. Both of this distributive justice will be affected most by their internal stakeholder,

Business ethics are cover variety of part to be analyzed. However, Compas Group: UN scandal in business ethics could be analyzed by using three different issues such as systemic, corporate, and individual issues. As the systematic issues, this scandal could be comprised within which how the Compas Group and UN operate with each other and comprise about the economic, political, and legal in their action. These also include the morality of the free market or the business ethical practices within the industry. Bribery can be defined as breaking the legal action and social system being implemented in the business operation. Also, instead of a free economic for every company in the market, Compas Group has become a monopoly in contract so conquer the food supply for the peacekeeper. That lead to larger investigations into UN procurement by UN and the US Congress, which comprise the contracts won by Compass.

The corporate issues for Compas group and UN are about the morality of the activities, policies, practices, or organizational structure as an individual company. In these cases, it is referring to the Compas group policies and their decision making to win the contract by using unethical action. Also, it involves the UN decision in selecting their supplier to provide food for the peacekeeper. As the result, poor performance by the supplier is being given to the consumer. This action neglecting their right to have the best service as the consumer is relying on the UN to select the best provider for their food. Based on due care theory, UN has the specialize knowledge and capabilities to minimize the risk from their peacekeeper being provided with excellent service. Thus, they must take reasonable step and policies to keep the expectation of their consumer. The decision that is being done by them will be affected to other people.

Last, an individual issue in Compas Group and UN business ethics is referring to the decision being made by persons within the company or organization. Also, how the behaviours are affecting to other. In this scandal, the individual could refer to the Compas employee and UN procurement officer. The moral obligations of the individual will reflect and then creating the corporation moral. The moral standard of action about right or wrong of Compas to give bride are cannot being done by Compas itself as corporation. But it being done by an individual in the Compas that reflecting its moral standard. It is because the law of agency could be used in these issues that identifies the duties of persons who agree to act on behalf of another party and who are allowed could act as the person or organization. (Harold Gill Reuschlein,1990). This means the unethical action of Compas Employee and UN Procurement officer is acting as behalf of the Compas group and UN itself. All the wrongdoing should be conveyed by the company or organization. However, there is still be different divider as the contract between the employee or officer between their responsibilities towards their employer on their decision limitations.

b.Awareness of stakeholders

Referring to Cambridge dictionary, awareness could be recognized as knowledge and understanding about the related subject and activity. Stakeholder could be defined as the person or organization that has an interest or relation that is essentially affected by the company action. The stakeholder could be divided in two groups of stakeholders, either internal or external stakeholder that are having the relationship with the organization. Internal stakeholders will be included: the business owners or shareholders, administration, staffs, suppliers, agents, and many more. However, the external stakeholders could be extended to authorities, competitors, consumers, media outlets, and the public.

In the Compas Group: UN scandal, as the main stakeholder that could be address their involvement to the unethical issues were the Compass group, Eurest Support Services, and the Russian official Alexander Yakovlev, the UN procurement officer. Based on the report, Compas Group is being charged to illegal have the 62 million dollars, three-year contract classified material to provide food and water to the peacekeepers in Liberia. On another report by the Switzerland-based Supreme, over the past five years Compas Group bribed the Alexander Yakovlev, with nearly 1 million dollars for illegally get the document for its Eurest Support Services (ESS) division. This action leads the UN to suspend the Compas Group for its charges of contract bidding unethical wrong doings. The best alternative in these cases for all stakeholder related in this case. Compas Group and UN are supposed to make full investigations. As their actions could cause compensatory justice to another stakeholder.

As for the individual in main stakeholder, which is the Compas group employee and UN procurement officer. One principle that is being broken is the principle of equal liberty, the principle states everyone must be protected and be equal to everyone. For the UN procurement officer, Alexander Yakovlev is broken his obligations as an employee to serve the interest of UN as an employer.He supposed to be honest by doing his part as UN procurement officer that does not disclose any UN confidential information or preferring the company selection in open bidding contract. Honesty is one principle should be followed and do not taking any action for personal benefit by taking any bribe from anyone. However, sometimes, he should consult with his superior to receive anything from other parties.

It also referring to Compass executive that involved in contract bidding deal, their obligations towards the company are to have more sales and gain more profits. The shareholder view of Friedman says a manager's only responsibility is to make as much money as possible with legal and ethical for shareholders. Corporate image and moral are basically based on the employee moral responsibility. As the unethical action is being done, it will allow this action retributive justice to take place. Action retributive justice referring that is any wrongdoing supposed to be punished. As for the Compas Group employee's action deserves the distributive justice because their unethical action is in their responsibility. Here, after the investigations, eight employees were caught. However, only three of them are being fired as their distributive justice, including Peter Harris, the head of Compass's UK division and Andrew Siewert, a mid-ranking manager in ESS.

Next, the related stakeholder in Compas Group scandal is the Compas Group competitor itself. The Switzerland-based Supreme, and ES-KO of Monaco, is Compass's major competitor to bidding the UN food supply contracts for the peacekeeper that is worth 350 million of dollars. However, for Compas Group to get the contract, it is been done improperly with resulting for both to lose the contract with unhealthy competition and losing their business deal. By the principle of justice, an equality and opportunity to all company participation fairly for UN food contract were being violated by the Compass Group.

Compensatory justice could be an alternative for both competitors in this scandal. Compensatory justice referring to an agent that needs to compensate the party that is being suffered the losses or injuries (Manuel Velasquez 2015). As for this Compas Group scandal, both Switzerland-based Supreme and ES-KO of Monaco should sue Compas Group. It is to claim the damages for the action that led their company to suffer the loses. If bribery is taking part in the contract bidding competition. Its contract bidding is cannot be acknowledged as competitive since Compas Group does not need to compete with Switzerland-based Supreme and ES-KO of Monaco. The action will close their chance to get the contract.

The last stakeholder was the consumer or the peacekeeper itself. Based on the report, the performance given by ESS to provide the foods for peacekeeper in Burundi is bad. The reason of this poor performance being given to the peacekeeper is because contract is not being selected by using pure healthy competition in contract bidding. Based on due care theory, UN has the specialize knowledge and capabilities to minimize the risk from their peacekeeper being provided with excellent service. Thus, they must take reasonable step and policies to keep the expectation of their consumer. The decision that is being done by them will be affected to other people.

c.Ethical reasoning

Ethical reasoning explains about type of critical thinking that uses ethical principles and frameworks. It is a process of identifying ethical issues and weighing multiple perspectives to make informed decisions. Ethical reasoning is not about knowing right from wrong but being able to think about and respond to a problem fairly, justly and responsibly. Ethical reasoning and the decision more to the ways in those individuals determine whether a course of action or stance is about for an ethical issue is morally right by evaluating variety courses of action and taking into account ethical principles (Pettifor, 1999). In fact, ethical reasoning is crucial for the behavior and moral decision making (Pettifor, 1999) and it consist the process involved in the next stage of Rest's (1986) for ethical decision making model. Research for the moral or ethical reasoning has been concerned with discovering more on moral decision strategy by hypotheticals moral dilemmas explanation and ask them to make a judge whether is right or wrong to explain their decisions. Their explanations and justification are used in presenting their reasoning about moral issues. Ethical reasoning has the similar basic structures that underline all of the reasoning. In addition to that, if we are giving reason well ethically, we must learn how to identify and assess our use in ethical reasoning consist of these basic intellectual structures.

Generally, Compass Group's scandal are about the firm faced two lawsuits brought against it for allegedly bribing a UN official to win contracts worth millions of pounds to supply United Nations (UN) peacekeepers. It was their competitors Es-Ko and Supreme Foodservice AG, who initiated lawsuits claiming violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act and New York State's Donnelly Act regulating free trade. Take New York State's Donnelly Act as an example, it explicitly prohibits several actions including bid rigging and group boycotting. Compass' action by bribing UN procurement officer are unethical because it serves the purpose to rig the award of UN contracts, and thus has caused both their competitors to lose in an unethical way. Apart from that, the bribing scandal of Compass Group also portray that both UN procurement officer and Compass has systemic issues in operating business as direct negotiation were being practised instead of an open tender. In the principle of ethical business, Compass' competitors does not receive distributive justice. Distributive justice concerned about fair distribution of society's benefits and burdens. Thus, Es-Ko and Supreme Foodservice AG deserve to compete fairly in the contracts.

Also, from this scandal issue we can see that Compass Group through its subsidiaries ESS has been reported for their poor performance on a food contract to provide rations to peacekeepers in Burundi. This is also the factor why Compass lose the contract later on. In the aspect of ethical duties, Compass does not protect consumer's interest. According to this view, the relationship between a business firm and its customers is essentially a contractual relationship, and the firm's moral duties to the customers are those created by this contractual relationship. When UN give the contract to Compass group, they voluntarily enter into a sales contract with the business firm. Compass freely and knowingly agrees to serve foods to UN peacekeeper in Burundi, and UN in turn freely and knowingly agrees to pay a certain amount of money to Compass for the food contract. So, Compass then has a duty to provide foods as per agreed in the contract and UN has a correlative right to get foods as how they demand and agreed in the contract.

Moreover, Compass Group had agreed by October 2006 to pay up to 40m to settle two lawsuits brought against it for allegedly bribing a UN official to win catering contracts. Despite the fact that Compass Group did not admit any legal liability, they believe that it is in the best interests of the business and shareholders, and good management, to avoid the uncertainties and costs associated with prolonged litigation (Richard, 2006). Our focus is on the future and this settlement is a major step in putting the matter behind us (Richard, 2006).

d.Ethical suggestions

The general view is that bribery is always unethical. In this context, Compass Group in no circumstances should any of the employee offer, give or accept any gift or hospitality, regardless of value, which might be construed as influencing a business decision. Giving and receiving gifts or hospitality can help build goodwill in business relationships but they are only appropriate in limited circumstances. Both Compass' managers and employees should consider some points when they are facing an opportunity to give or receive gifts or hospitality which includes; (i) What is your intention when offering a gift or hospitality or what do you think is the intention of the business partner when offering the same to you? (ii) Is the intention to build a business relationship or to influence a business decision such as the award of a tendered contract? (iii) Is the nature of the gift or hospitality modest or could it make you (as the recipient) feel under an obligation to give something back? (iv) Have you checked to see if the gift/hospitality is legal in the country of both the recipient and the offeror? Be particularly careful when considering gifts or hospitality for government officials as some countries do not allow this, (v) Have you checked if the recipient of the gift or hospitality is allowed under their gifts policy to receive this? and (vi) Are you happy to justify giving or receiving the gift or hospitality? If it doesn't feel right, it probably isn't. Besides, they should also made clear regarding gifts or hospitality that should never considered as acceptable. Compass Groups' managers and employees should not give, offer, receive or approve any: (i) Gifts or hospitality involving third parties involved in any competitive bid or tender process that you are - or may be considered to be - involved in; (ii) Gifts or hospitality that would be illegal under local laws such as offering a gift to a government official which may be seen as a bribe under local law - please ensure you are familiar with your local legal obligations; (iii) Payments of cash (or cash equivalents) or paying someone else's personal bills or expenses; (iv) Any hospitality that might be in breach of this Code of Business Conduct or that may be considered indecent or inappropriate as part of a business relationship or which may have a negative effect on Compass' reputation; and (v) Gifts or hospitality that you are not prepared to report or seek approval for internally irrespective of whether you use personal or company hospitality.

Apart from that, Compass Group should also practise whistleblowing or social media rants in their work environment.As we acknowledge, the widespread nature of social media has made employees conduct online a factor in their employment status. The question of the ethics of firing or punishing employees for their online posts is complicated. However, the line is usually drawn when an employee's online behaviouris considered to bedisloyal to their employer. This means that a Facebook post complaining about work is not punishable on its own but can be punishable if it does something to reduce business.

In the same vein, business owners must be able to respect and not penalize employees who are deemed whistleblowers to either regulatory authorities or on social media. This means that employees should be encouraged, and cannot be penalized, for raising awareness of workplace violations online. For example, there are an employee published an articleon the blogging website, outlining what she claimed as the awful working conditions she was experiencing at the foodservice company. She was then fired for violating Compass Group's code of conduct. The ambiguity of her case, and whether her post was justifiable, or malicious and disloyal conduct, shows the importance of implementing clear social media policies within the organization. In order to avoid this risk of ambiguity, Compass should stipulate which online behaviours constitute an infringement.

Nondisclosure and corporate espionage are also an aspect to be concerned about. Many firms are at risk of current and former employees stealing information, including client data used by organizations in direct competition with the company. When intellectual property is stolen, or private client information is illegally distributed, this constitutes corporate espionage. This can be seen in where ESS have improperly obtained confidential information concerning a three-year contract to supply food and water to UN peacekeepers in Liberia. This matter alone has resulted big loss to both parties, let alone if a competitor bribed one of Compass Group's employee to obtain confidential company information. Thus, Compass Group may put in place mandatory nondisclosure agreements, stipulating strict financial penalties in case of violation, in order to discourage these types of ethics violations.

Compass Group can also undergo various initiatives to enhance and strengthen the compliance and ethics framework and oversight of the group's business ethics and conduct. In this context, strategic initiative roadmap of compliance and ethics programme can be conducted to enhance Compass Group's level of maturity for ethics and integrity and progressing towards a mature compliance and business ethics culture. Such programmes may include: (i) rolling out and implementing code of business ethics programme for both employees and directors; (ii) a campaign to raise awareness on whistleblowing; and (iii) code of business and ethics e-learning system for continuous refresher training along company's journey. These communication and awareness programmes must be monitored, reviewed and assessed for their effectiveness via culture surveys for instance, with the purpose to gauge the employees' level of understanding and awareness on Compliance and Ethics culture in Compass Group.

e.Ethical decision making

Any kind of situation either good or bad result always occurs in any business. The same goes for Compass Group, the past experiences makes the company even better than before. To ensure that kind of situation does not occur again, Compass Group must figure out several strategies that include all the departments, from top-level to bottom line managements.

The first thing that the company should take immediate action is making proper guidelines, or typically is called a "code of ethics". It is a written document that contains numerous aspects all about the company such as profile, vision and mission, principles, and culture. Proper application of business ethics in organizations will guarantee the maximization of permissible revenues and adequately defend the interests of all owners of business organizations, including corporate social responsibility of business organizations, much of which has been said and published by scholarly academics (Sealy, 1987). Besides, it should also be containing professional, ethical, safe, and manner standards that will be applied during office hours.For example, in the United States, under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Corporations (1991), businesses can decrease their sentences if they can show that they have an "effective compliance programmed" in place previous to the crime. One of the components of a successful enforcement policy is "compliance standards" which are "reasonably capable of reducing the potential for criminal activity"' (United States Sentencing Commission, 1991). "Compliance Standards" has been widely interpreted to refer to the Code of Ethics.

Furthermore, the "code of ethics" also functioning to teach and train the employees on how to conduct business ethically. If they fully understand what is being stated in the documents, they will know the correct way to deal with clients, among employees themselves, partners, vendors, subcontractors, as well as the broader community with fairness, dignity, and reverence. If the employees consistently follow the "code of ethics", they will stay far away from making any unethical action that can harm the company and even themselves. The lack of integrity in corporate associations is causing immense damage to the clients of business organizations. The best example of this is the sub-prime loans issued to borrowers in the US in 2008, which took down the US economy and have seriously impacted the global economy (Ebrahim, 2008). The world's economy has suffered an extreme economic slowdown, thousands of jobs have been unemployed, and investors have lost billions of dollars, and so on.

Moreover, another point that can be suggested in ethical decision making is maintaining transparency and honesty. The leader or boss should create a healthy environment in the workplace. To reach that goal, the first thing is by having a good professional relationship among all the employees. When the employer and employee are having a good relationship, the employee would be more open to speaking up if they have any suggestions, opinions, or even problems they might face in the company. This situation is good for the company because it is a sign that the company is running on the right path. Transparency can be led to achieve the best result, not only focusing on solving problems (Lopez, 2009). It established five rules of open conduct for leaders to consider to be able to inspire the enterprise in a meaningful way. These may be important to the communication of operational changes and actions from organizing plans within the organization. The five components are (1) repeat your strategy and often, reminding people of the goals and objectives to be met, (2) hear the concerns being expressed and allow for input from affected parties, (3) isolate individual needs and concerns that might impact the larger group. Addressing people's situations keeps this from affecting others unnecessarily. (4) Separate facts from fiction and hearsay, this addresses untruths that result from speculation or bias interpretation, (5) own up to the bad news, challenging situations usually have bad or some unpleasantness associated with it, being upfront about that is important to earning trust.

The other suggestion for ethical decision-making is by launching a program to educate employees on the importance of speak up. Speak up here means that the employees feel free and brave enough to make a report if they face any unethical situations in the workplace. It can be a hotline or online medium that the employees can access easily. The medium functioning for all departments from the top level to the bottom line management to raise their concerns or making a report. The report is made because the employee might face any situations that improper, unsafe, strange, unethical, or even illegal. Some people cannot speak up about what they face due to trauma, bad experiences, safety, etc. The facility is functioning nonstop 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. This is an initiative from the company to ensure the harmonic environment can be produced, honest communication can be retained. The employee that makes the report should not be worried about their information because it will be secured perfectly by the official authority. If the person is found guilty, he or she will face disciplinary action or even legal action.

4.0 CONCLUSIONS

In a nutshell, the case from Compass Group is a normal case that happens all over the world either involve a big or small company. Bribery cases always occur in any newspaper or television report that mostly was involving people from the corporate sector, private and even government sector. The position they held was wrongly used for their interests. However, it is still an illegal action no matter how small the deal and no matter who was found guilty.

There is 2 point that people can learn from the Compass case. The first thing is if your company is unable to reach criteria or conditions to win any contract, you should improve the performance of the company from the overall aspects. You cannot take an illegal way such as deal with the officials privately to make your company will be chosen to obtain the contract. Let say your company obtained the contract and unable to complete the tasks or project smoothly and perfectly, a bad image will come to the company and you might not get a chance for any contract in the future.

Furthermore, you are not immune from any illegal action even you are influential people such as a minister, corporate members, or even royalty. If you are done any unethical or illegal activities, you will face legal action by the government such as arrested, fined, or imprisoned. Just like the case, a person who is from the top management of the UN organization is also being arrested after found guilty of fraudulent conduct. So for a better future, you must focus on healthy competition with the competitors and prevent them from involve in any unethical situation. Make a report to the official authority if needed.