Getting Medicine to Bosnia: Acceptable Bribery? As chief legalofficer in a well-respected company making lifesaving drugs, GordonSmith was asked by his board of directors to look into rumors ofbribery with the firm’s Bosnia contract. The contract, hediscovered, had been ordinary in almost every respect: A majorrelief organization had contracted with his company to supply amillion inexpensive kits of medicine for delivery into the war-tornregions of Bosnia. Like most such contracts with charitableorganizations, it contained hardly any profit for his firm. What hefound strange, however, was the payment of an extraordinarily largecommission to a Romanian distributor to deliver the kits deep intoBosnia. Seeking out the executive in his own firm who hadnegotiated the contract, he had one question in mind: Was this abribe? Yes said the executive, it’s a bribe that we’re paying.According to the Romanian distributor, the backs of the deliverytrucks were loaded with the kits — and the glove compartments werestuffed with cash. That way, when the drivers were stopped atroadblocks set up by local militia units operating all acrossBosnia, they could pay whatever was demanded and continue theirjourney. In the past, he noted, drivers without cash had been takenfrom their trucks and shot. If the kits were to be delivered, thiswas a cost of doing business. Gordon felt sure that none of themoney had flowed back to the executive, whose only motive was toget the kits delivered. Gordon faced a dilemma. Should he draft areport to the board on this most unorthodox contract? Or should hekeep silent? Analysis Everything in Gordon's background with hiscompany told him that this contract was not the way to do business.Bribery, he knew, was simply unacceptable to the board, who feltstrongly that once that barrier was breached, there would be nostopping the shakedowns in the future. But everything in his makeupas a compassionate being told him that providing medicine for thewounded was of overriding importance, and that the normal ethic ofcommerce didn't apply in a war zone. Case from the Institute forGlobal Ethics. 1. Who are the stakeholders to Gordon’s decision asto whether to continue the bribe payments or not? Please list themwith a brief explanation. 2. As the case says, “What should Gordondo?” Do you continue with the bribe payments (these clearly arebribes)? If so, why; if not, why not? Please indicate which ethicalperspective(s) (i.e., profit maximization, utilitarianism,universalism) support your decision.