Resolving ethical dilemmas

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

In this video we will consolidate a skill: justify a decision through rules and facts. Use the case to test what you would do in a similar situation. We will explain the proposed response step by step so that you can understand each choice and recognise when more information would be needed. The code helps apply organisational principles in concrete situations. It does not replace Estonian law or restrict lawful reporting. Public-function cases require KVS scope assessment. The examples support clear and reasoned decisions.

A dilemma may involve speed, loyalty and impartiality. Urgency does not legalise prohibited conduct. The code guides action, but complex issues may require qualified advice. Reasons should address effects and interests.

Apply the following rule: TÕRTKS section 2 covers work-related information about EU-law breaches in listed fields, including procurement, EU financial interests, data protection and EU restrictive measures. It does not automatically cover every employment dispute or corruption concern. KVS section 6 contains separate corruption-reporting protection that must be assessed on its own conditions.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Describe the decision and influences, find the rule and lawful alternative, and arrange independent decisions if involved. Record actual reasons and later check the response. Before moving on, turn this procedure into a sequence you could explain to a colleague. Identify the first check, the action that depends on its outcome and the record that allows the decision to be reconstructed. Follow the sequence on screen and identify the point where an error would change the result.

3. Case Study & Compliance Action

A manager wants an urgent order from a friend without reasons. The employee explains requirements and proposes a lawful rapid route rather than creating a fictitious competition afterwards. Now read the case carefully. Separate established facts from information you would still need to confirm. Do not add motives or events that have not been described. This distinction matters when choosing a response proportionate to the information available.

The exercise is as follows: Does a desirable goal justify invented records? Choose an answer and write one sentence explaining it. During the pause, compare your choice with the criteria we have just considered. Also think about the material you would retain to explain the decision later.

No. Records must reflect reality. Find a permitted solution and escalate to the authorised decision-maker when necessary.

One mistake to avoid is: justifying an outcome with an invented retrospective story.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. A report is automatically called protected because it contains the word corruption. What check is missing?

Check the work-related connection, facts and TÕRTKS sections 2,3 and 13. Assess KVS section 6 separately where relevant. A form label does not confer every right. Identify an appropriate alternative route and limit disclosure if another procedure applies.