The Dick's Sporting Goods Decision: Moral Tinges

I teach etchis at Drake University. As an ethics professsor, I am fascinated by the decision made today by the CEO of Dick's Sporting Goods, Mr. Edward Stack. Regardless of your stance in the matter - in other words, regardless of whether you agree with Mr. Stack or not - I argue that this decision took some serious moral guts. Read more about Mr. Stack's decision HERE
and HERE.

As I review Mr. Stack's decision, here is what I'm asking myself:

• If I were the CEO of a company such as Dick's Sporting Goods and I had to make a decision that might impact my bottomline but honored a key value - would I do it?
• What conflicting values might Mr. Stack need to consider? For instance, as the CEO of a publicly traded company, Mr. Stack has a duty to multiple stakeholders including not only his own employees but also all investors, small and large.

Full disclosure (as I believe that ethically I should, to the best of my abilities, state my biases): I agree with Mr. Stack and applaud his decision. My main point here, however, is not whether I agree with the decision or not. Instead, I am intrigued by the difficulty and justification of the decision. I have a few questions for you all:
​

• Would you have made the same decision?
• If so, why?
• Listen to a discussion that took place this morning (2-28) at MSNBC. In it, MSNBC hosts Stephanie Ruhle and Ali Velshi interview NYU professor Scott Galloway (open in HERE). It seemed to me that the arguments offered by the professor had to do with the consequences of Mr. Stack's decision rather than his motives.

​
​What do you think? I'm looking forward to your comments!