The CEO's Ethical Problems
The CEO is initially willing to jeopardize the lives of the company's workers. There is a conflict of interest when a CEO permits employees to work in a hostile environment or under bad conditions. The CEO's handling of the company's employees unequally is the source of the second ethical problem. By postponing taking action to avoid a decline in the stock price, which would negatively effect top management compensation, he is willing to sacrifice subordinate personnel in order to protect the interests of the directors.
Arguments for Adhering to the CEO's Strategy
The CEO's worries about how the choice would affect the stock price are legitimate. In addition to lowering the senior management's bonuses, taking action without a clear plan may result in the closure of the plant, and thus the workers would lose jobs. Another argument for his action is that the CEO initiated the process and it is evident he means well for the foreign workers. Therefore, it would be prudent to follow his guidelines as he may have succeeded using a similar strategy in the course of his previous engagements.
Arguments against Following CEO's Approach
The lives of workers are far much more valuable than the profitability of the company. Allowing them to continue working under unsafe conditions is unacceptable irrespective of the justification. The second argument against is that the approach is intended to benefit only a small group of individuals who excluding the bonuses earn multiples of what workers in the factories do.
What I Would Do
I would first consider when the shareholders' meeting would take place. If it were in several days or weeks then waiting would be appropriate. However, if it would take several months before the meeting, then the safety of the employees would come first. The second aspect that I would consider is the nature of the threat facing the employees. If it were a threat on their life, waiting for even days would be catastrophic.
