Resolving ethical dilemmas

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

In this video we will consolidate a skill: explain an ethical choice using actual criteria. 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 connects principles with actual decisions. For Maltese public administration, read the First Schedule to Chapter 595 and applicable directives. In private organisations, distinguish entity policy from a specific legal duty.

Consider law, code, interests and consequences. Everybody does it is not a justification. Fear of delay does not justify concealing a conflict.

Apply the following rule: Article 2 covers improper practices including various legal breaches, corruption, health, safety, environment and Union-law areas. Work-related connection, reasonable grounds under article 9, particular routes and exclusions apply. Very minor or trivial matters are excluded. Also examine special rules for certain services, professional privilege, classified information and criminal procedures. Choosing a form category does not establish protection.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Record options and the relevant rule. Assess who is affected and who can decide independently. Document the decision and limits. 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.

Consider how a colleague taking over tomorrow would understand the decision. Identify the verified information and its source, who is authorised to decide and who checks the result. The record should connect the decision to the material actually used rather than repeat the whole file. State critical gaps and assign a specific action to resolve them. This makes continuity independent of one person’s memory. Apply the proposed organisational steps within legal powers. In the case, distinguish observation, conclusion and hypothesis. An observation describes available evidence, a conclusion explains what can reasonably be inferred and a hypothesis still needs checking. Do not infer motives merely from unusual behaviour. Identify which further information could change the decision and whether it can be obtained lawfully and proportionately. Incomplete knowledge justifies neither certainty of guilt nor indifference to an actual risk.

3. Case Study & Compliance Action

A manager is pressed to approve a favourable exception for a friend to close a transaction quickly. 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: What is the appropriate first step? 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.

Disclose the relationship and arrange independent assessment of the exception using applicable criteria.

One mistake to avoid is: justifying concealment by time pressure.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. A report is automatically considered protected because it includes the word corruption. Which check is missing?

Examine the facts, work-related context and Maltese protection conditions. The form label helps organise information but does not decide legal scope. If the case falls outside scope, identify a suitable procedure without unnecessary disclosure.