UPI Study › Courses › Business Ethics › Free lessons › Lesson 1.2 Free with a free account
How Ethical Decisions Get Made: A Step-by-Step View
Business Ethics · Chapter 1: Foundations of Business Ethics and Moral ReasoningSection 1.2 · lesson 2 of 10514 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Business Ethics.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Business Ethics
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: What Shapes Ethics at Work: People, Culture, and Context →← Business Ethics Today: Frameworks for the Modern WorkplaceNext lesson: What Shapes Ethics at Work: People, Culture, and Context →
In this lesson
A repeatable process: recognize, gather facts, weigh options, decide, act, and reflect.
- Explain why a deliberate process improves ethical judgment.
- Describe the six stages and their common pitfalls.
- Apply the model to a workplace supplier scenario.
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,872 words). Read along, or search it.
Foundations of Business Ethics and Moral Reasoning
How Ethical Decisions Get Made
Ethical decisions rarely arrive with a clear label. Everyday work creates pressure to move quickly, especially under deadlines. A deadline, loyalty to a colleague, or established habit can influence action before anyone pauses. This lesson introduces a repeatable process for noticing concerns, examining them, and learning afterward. The model has six stages: recognize, gather the facts, weigh the options, decide, act, and reflect. Each stage addresses a different risk, from overlooking the issue to forgetting to review what happened. The sequence adds discipline to activities people already perform, without consistently connecting them. You will explain each stage, alongside the pitfall that can weaken it. We apply the model to a purchasing coordinator confronting a concealed supplier material change. That example connects the stages, showing why a decision extends beyond an initial reaction. By the end, you should be able to follow a concern through action, communication, and reflection.
Sequence and Discipline
Reflection Connects This Decision with the Next
An ethical decision-making model is a structured sequence. It moves from noticing an issue to a considered response. The diagram shows the stages in order, with reflection leading back toward recognition in the next situation. Recognition asks whether there is an ethical dimension, before treating the matter as a routine task. Gathering facts establishes what is known and who is affected, rather than relying on impressions alone. Weighing options compares available responses, including their consequences, respect for rights, and ability to withstand scrutiny. Deciding selects a response and identifies its reasons, while acting carries it out and communicates it. Reflection returns to the actual outcome, asking what the experience teaches for later decisions. These checkpoints interrupt momentum, which deadlines, loyalty, or habit may otherwise carry into unexamined action. Following the model supports careful judgment, without guaranteeing a simple choice or an ideal outcome. It supports disciplined examination, rather than skipping directly from instinct to action.
Recognize
Notice the Ethical Dimension of an Ordinary Task
Recognition notices the ethical dimension. It begins the process, before the situation receives further examination. Moral awareness names this capacity, which differs from treating every problem as purely practical or operational. A scheduling conflict might appear to require only a workable timetable and a quick response. A sales pitch or expense-report item can also look routine, while raising questions about fair treatment. Recognition means pausing to ask whether the choice affects someone’s rights, well-being, or reasonable treatment. That question looks beyond the immediate task, toward the people whose interests the decision could affect. The common pitfall is missing the ethical dimension, because the work is described only in operational terms. Waiting for an obvious warning sign can leave subtler concerns unnoticed until the decision moves forward. Routinely asking the recognition question helps create opportunities to identify concerns that otherwise receive little attention. Recognition flags the issue; it does not yet establish all the facts or determine the response.
Gather the Facts
Separate Verified Information from Assumptions
Once the issue is recognized, gather the facts. Do not treat assumptions as a reliable basis for action. Ask what is actually known, separating verified information from rumor, guesswork, and incomplete impressions. Also identify what remains uncertain, so the later analysis does not silently depend on missing facts. Stakeholders include everyone affected by the decision, whether or not they participate in making it. Relevant people may be outside the meeting, elsewhere in the organization, or beyond its boundaries. Identifying them widens the factual picture, beyond whoever first raised the concern. The stage’s common pitfall is acting on assumptions, or proceeding with an incomplete account of the situation. Careful reasoning later cannot make inaccurate information reliable, because those later comparisons depend on the factual basis. Time pressure can make this stage uncomfortable, yet overlooking critical facts can weaken the eventual decision. Distinguish recognition from fact gathering: first notice the ethical concern, then establish what is known about it.
Weigh the Options
Compare Alternatives through Several Questions
Weighing the options means laying out available courses of action, rather than defending only the first idea. Compare each path through several questions. Different perspectives can reveal different weaknesses in an option. First, ask about likely consequences: what effects might follow, and which stakeholders would experience them? Consequentialist reasoning evaluates a choice mainly through the outcomes it is likely to produce for those affected. Next, ask whether the option respects everyone’s rights and reasonable expectations within the situation. Finally, consider scrutiny: could you explain the choice publicly, or to someone whose judgment you respect? These questions are related, without being interchangeable tests that must always produce an identical recommendation. An attractive consequence may coexist with a rights concern, which a single comparison would overlook. The common pitfall is testing only one option, or testing alternatives through only one kind of question. The point of several perspectives is to surface those weaknesses, before making the eventual choice.
Decide
Choose Deliberately and State the Reasons
Weighing options and deciding are different stages. Comparison alone does not select a response. At some point, the decision-maker must make a deliberate choice rather than allowing circumstances to decide by default. Sometimes the right choice is escalation, when another person has the authority or expertise needed. That remains a decision within the model, rather than a failure to resolve everything personally. A good justification states why this option was selected, including the specific trade-offs considered during comparison. You should be able to communicate that reasoning in a sentence or two, using clear language. The short explanation expresses the analysis; complex facts still require careful review. If the reason cannot be stated, the weighing stage may need another pass before action proceeds. The common pitfall is drift, where a choice emerges without a deliberate decision or explainable basis. Deciding therefore connects careful comparison with a response that someone can own, explain, and implement.
Act
Carry Out the Decision and Communicate It
Acting gives the decision practical effect. Carry out the response, rather than leaving it private. Carry out the choice through the appropriate actions, including the people who need to participate. Communication is another essential part of this stage, because others need to understand what was decided. Often they also need the reasons, especially when the choice affects their work or expectations. Skipping that explanation can create confusion or resentment, even when the underlying decision is defensible. A private judgment does not explain what others should do, or why. The common pitfall is making the right call internally, while failing to communicate it clearly. That is why a manager who never explains a decision has handled the act stage incompletely. Implementation and communication work together, turning a reasoned choice into an understandable organizational response. The process still continues afterward, because carrying out the action does not eliminate the need to learn.
Reflect
Review Actual Outcomes and Carry the Learning Forward
Reflection reviews the decision after acting. Compare the actual outcome with what was expected. Ask what happened, rather than assuming that implementing the planned response produced exactly the intended result. Then compare that experience with the expectations used when weighing the options and choosing a path. Consider what should be handled differently, if a similar situation appears in the future. The review might reveal incomplete facts, an overlooked stakeholder, or an explanation that failed to reach someone. It can also identify a useful approach worth carrying forward, when the response worked as expected. Workload pressure can tempt people to move immediately to the next task, skipping that review. Deliberate review protects that learning opportunity, rather than relying on spare time appearing after the work. Learning from outcomes sharpens recognition later, which explains the feedback connection in the cycle diagram. A single response can then become an improvement in judgment, rather than an isolated episode soon forgotten.
Worked Supplier Scenario
Recognize Concealment and Establish the Facts
The worked hypothetical concerns a purchasing coordinator at a mid-sized manufacturer, dealing with a long-standing supplier. She discovers that the supplier quietly substituted a cheaper material into a component, without notifying anyone. The invoiced price stayed unchanged. This creates a concern beyond a routine quality variation. At recognition, she notices concealment affecting both cost and product integrity, rather than describing only a material difference. She then gathers the facts, reviewing shipment records from the previous six months for relevant evidence. Comparison with the original specification sheet confirms the substitution, rather than leaving it as an unverified suspicion. She identifies the people relying on the component, tracing its role through the manufacturer’s downstream activities. Those stakeholders include the assembly line, the quality team, and ultimately the customer receiving the finished product. This factual work gives the option comparison a basis, connecting the concealed change with the people affected. The stages remain distinct: noticing the integrity concern comes before establishing its details and downstream significance.
Worked Supplier Scenario
Compare Three Paths and Select a Response
The coordinator considers three paths, instead of assuming that the first available response is the only one. One path is saying nothing and allowing the current order to finish, leaving the discrepancy unaddressed. A second is quietly renegotiating the price, without raising the unauthorized substitution as a separate concern. A third is formally reporting the discrepancy, bringing it to procurement leadership and the supplier. She compares each path with the affected parties in view, rather than considering only the immediate cost. She also asks what she would be comfortable explaining to her manager, using the scrutiny question. Quiet price renegotiation addresses billing. It leaves the quality and integrity risk unresolved. She chooses formal reporting, because it addresses both the quality concern and the billing issue. That justification links the decision to the comparison, rather than presenting a choice without supporting reasons. The example illustrates this case’s reasoning; other supplier concerns may require different responses.
Worked Supplier Scenario
Implement the Decision and Review the Experience
Having chosen formal reporting, the coordinator still needs to implement the decision through appropriate actions. She documents the evidence, preserving the basis for the concern rather than relying on a vague allegation. The same day, she raises the issue with her manager and the quality team for attention. She requests that the supplier account be flagged pending a response, supporting follow-through on the discrepancy. These actions communicate the concern and its evidence, giving the decision an effect beyond her private conclusion. Weeks later, she reflects on the supplier relationship. She reviews how it was handled and what it revealed. She recognizes that earlier spot-checks against incoming specifications could have detected the unauthorized change sooner. That is the lesson she carries into monitoring other supplier accounts, rather than treating the review as closure alone. Reflection therefore affects future practice, including the information that may help her recognize another problem earlier. The case connects all six stages, from noticing concealment to improving later practice.
Review and Connect
Explain What Each Stage Adds
Begin the review by distinguishing recognition from gathering facts, which answer related but different questions. Recognition notices the ethical dimension; gathering facts establishes what is known and who is affected afterward. Next, explain why several option tests matter: one perspective can miss a weakness another perspective reveals. Consequences, rights, and scrutiny widen the comparison, rather than restricting judgment to one attractive result. For the manager who never explains a defensible choice, identify an incomplete act stage and its communication gap. Reflection connects the cycle because reviewing actual outcomes improves recognition and response when similar concerns arise later. Finally, explain why quiet price renegotiation was rejected in the supplier hypothetical, rather than treating it as sufficient. It addressed billing while ignoring the quality and integrity risk, leaving affected stakeholders’ concerns partly unresolved. Remember decision-making model, moral awareness, and stakeholder. Also remember consequentialist reasoning and reflection. Use the stages as connected checkpoints, supporting a considered response and a continuing opportunity to learn.
About Business Ethics at UPI Study
Business Ethics (Business 211) is a self-paced online course of 105 video lessons in 19 chapters, from moral reasoning and compliance to governance, diversity, government and society, social responsibility, consumers, advertising, technology, the environment and global business. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Business courses Every course with PRO →
Compare: Which ethics course? · Business Law vs Business Ethics
Why take it here
Why students take Business Ethics with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Business Ethics carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About How Ethical Decisions Get Made: A Step-by-Step View
What are the steps of the ethical decision-making model?
What is moral awareness in ethical decision-making?
How should you weigh options when making an ethical decision?
Why is communicating a decision part of acting ethically?
About the Business Ethics course
How many college credits is Business Ethics?
How much does Business Ethics cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Business Ethics take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Business Ethics.
105 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →