Ethics Case

Blake Romney became Chief Executive Officer of Peters Inc. two years ago. At the times, the company was reporting lagging profits, and Blake was brought in to "stir things up". The company has three divisions, electrons, fiber optics, and plumbing supplies. Blake has no interest in plumbing supplies, and one of the first things he did was to put pressure on his accountants to reallocate some of the company's fixed costs away from the other two divisions to the plumbing division. This had the effect of causing the plumbing division to report losses during the last two years: in the past it had always reported low, but acceptance, net income. Blake felt that this reallocation would shine a favorable light on him in front of the board of directors because it meant that the electronics and fiber optics divisions would look like they were improving. Given that these are "businesses of the future," he believed that the stock market would react favorably to these increases while not penalizing the poor results of the plumbing division. Without this shift in the allocation of fixed costs, the profits of the electronics and fiber optics divisions would not have improved. But now the board of the directors has suggested that the plumbing division is closed because it is reporting losses. This would mean that nearly 500 employees, many of whom have worked for Peters their whole lives, would lose their jobs.

a. If a division is reporting losses, does that necessarily mean that it should be closed?

b. Was the reallocation of fixed costs across division unethical?

c. What should Blake do?