Business Ethics and CSR · Dilemma tribunal with verdicts

⚖️ How to play Grey Zone

You are the board of a UAE delivery platform, deciding six real dilemmas and judging another board's choices.

Join a game Run it as facilitator Print this guide

Your goal

Earn strong profit over three rounds without letting hidden harms wreck your reputation. Reputation multiplies every dirham you earn, so a choice that pays today can cost far more later. The best boards can explain each choice through a clear ethical lens.

You run one fictional delivery platform with 9,000 gig riders and a supplier network. Every board faces the same dilemmas. From round 2 you also sit as a tribunal on the next board in the room, and another board judges you.

Join in 30 seconds

Scan the QR code on the big screen with your phone camera, or open the game page and type the 4-letter code.
Type your first name. No app, no account.
Join a team or create one and name it. Your teammates get a role each. In individual mode you run your own board.
If your phone locks or the page reloads, open it again: you return to the same seat.

Team roles

Lead: Chairs the team and submits the final decision. If the Lead's phone dies, any teammate can take over. In this game: Make the final call on each dilemma and own the justification.
Analyst: Owns the numbers and the team's prediction for the round. In this game: Estimate what each option earns now and what it could cost if the harm surfaces.
Treasurer: Watches the budget and costs before the team commits. In this game: Remember that reputation multiplies every future dirham of profit.
Risk and ethics officer: Flags harms and pushes back before the team commits. In this game: Ask which hidden harm could surface next round and who would leak it.
Voice: Talks to other teams and presents the team's story at the debrief. In this game: Write the justifications and lead the tribunal discussion.

The three rounds

Each round you predict your own result, make your decisions within about 8 minutes, and then the model reveals what happened. An event card lands between rounds.

1
Round 1 · Heat and supply chain
You decide the midday heat dilemma and the supplier allegation. There is no tribunal yet. No harm can surface in round 1, so every board's profit looks clean.
Watch for: Compare profits across boards. Read the line that says whether hidden risk is still building up behind your choices.
2
Round 2 · Data and green claims
You decide the data deal and the green claim. You also judge the next board's round 1 choices. Hidden harms from round 1 may now surface and cut your reputation.
Watch for: Check the harms table and the tribunal line. Notice how a reputation drop lowers your multiplier on this round's profit.
3
Round 3 · People and algorithms
You decide the layoffs and the biased algorithm, and judge round 2 choices. At year-end, analysts price in every harm still hidden, including this round's.
Watch for: See which earlier choices finally cost you. Compare total profit and final reputation between cautious and aggressive boards.

Your decisions

What each control on your phone does, and how to think about it.

Riders in the midday heat	Round 1 only	Three options for 46°C lunch peaks. Each has a profit effect this round. Some also carry a hidden harm that can surface later, and some earn goodwill now. Ask who bears the risk in each option: riders, customers or shareholders. Then ask how it would look on the news.
Supplier labour allegation	Round 1 only	Three responses to an NGO claim about passports and recruitment fees. Hidden harms from this round can surface one or two rounds later. Separate what you know from what you hope. Who pays if the allegation is true and you did little?
Selling customer data	Round 2 only	Four options for a broker's offer, from selling everything to refusing. Profit, hidden harm and goodwill differ by option. Consider whether customers would agree if asked, and what happens if the deal becomes public.
The green claim	Round 2 only	Three ways to talk about deliveries when only 30% of emissions are offset. Each option trades brand lift now against what you can prove. Test the claim: could you show the evidence to an investor or a regulator tomorrow?
Layoffs by app notification	Round 3 only	Three ways to cut 200 support staff. Cost and harm differ. In round 3, any harm still hidden is counted at the year-end review that same round. Think about the people leaving and the people staying. How will each group remember this?
The biased allocation algorithm	Round 3 only	Three responses to data showing older and non-Arabic-speaking riders get 20% fewer orders. Hidden harms are priced in at year-end in this round. Ask whether fixing quietly and fixing openly lead to the same trust, and why.
One-line justification for your two decisions	Every round	Free text, shown to the board that judges you next round. It does not change your numbers directly. Only the first 100 characters reach your judge. Name the stakeholders you weighed and the trade-off you accepted. Judges respond to reasons, not slogans.
Ethical lens you relied on	Every round	Pick Consequences, Rights, Fairness or Character. It is shown to your judges with your choices. It does not change your numbers directly. Choose the lens that truly drove the decision. Then check whether another lens would have chosen differently.
Tribunal verdict on another board	Rounds 2–3	Endorse, Question or Condemn each of the other board's two previous-round choices. Endorse adds 3 to their trust, Question takes 1, Condemn takes 5. Your own score is not affected. Judge the reasoning as well as the choice. Use a lens, and be ready to defend your verdict out loud.

What you see on your phone

Your board: Your reputation (trust), resilience, the profit multiplier your reputation gives you, the AED 3.0m base profit per round and your cumulative profit. Check the multiplier before you choose.
On the table this round: The two dilemmas you must decide this round, with the background facts. Each option on the form shows its profit effect for this round only.
Harms that have surfaced: Appears once a hidden harm comes out: the round, the decision behind it and the reputation hit. Use it to see how your earlier choices are catching up with you.
You judge (their previous round): From round 2: the board you judge, its two choices from last round, the lens it named and its one-line justification. Read this before you give your verdicts.
News: Appears after some event cards: a whistleblower, a viral video, investor or regulator pressure. It tells you which harms now surface faster or cost more.

How you are scored

Every game in the library uses the same scoreboard. Your round result is your Profit (AED m); the leaderboard adds resilience and trust.

Score = 100 × (0.5 × performance + 0.25 × resilience + 0.25 × trust) + prediction points

Performance: ProfitProfit in AED m each round: base AED 3.0m plus this round's option effects, times your reputation multiplier (0.4 + 1.2 × reputation/100). Event fines and lost sales of AED 0.06m per point of revealed harm are then deducted.

Resilience (0–100)Resilience starts at 60. It blends a financial buffer built from recent profit with your reputation. Harm still hidden on your books pulls it down, even before it surfaces.

Trust (0–100)Trust starts at 60 and tracks reputation. Reputation drifts 15% towards 50 each round, rises with goodwill and falls fast when harms surface. Tribunal verdicts on your choices move it further.

Performance is your total Profit over the rounds, scaled from the lowest to the highest in the room. Before each round you also predict “Your profit this round”: land close and earn up to 10 bonus points; miss by the whole amount and earn none. The facilitator may change the weights before the game starts.

Tips

Look past the profit number on each option. It is this round only; ask what could surface next round or the round after.
Reputation multiplies every future dirham, so a reputation hit in round 2 also shrinks round 3 profit.
Try each dilemma through all four lenses before you vote. Note where they disagree; that is where the real dilemma is.
Write a justification you would be happy to read aloud. Your judges see it next to your choices.
When you judge, ask what the other board knew at the time, not just how it turned out.
Read the News panel after each event card. Some events make certain harms surface faster or cost more.

Common mistakes

Treating the profit shown on each option as the full story. Hidden harms surface later and cut both reputation and profit.
Assuming hidden harms will stay hidden until the game ends. In round 3 the year-end review counts all of them.
Leaving the justification blank or vague. Your judges then have only your choices to go on.

A worked example

In round 1 a board picks surge bonuses (+2.2m) and a written denial (+1.2m). Gross profit is 3.0 + 3.4 = 6.4m. Reputation drifts from 60 to 58.5, so the multiplier is about 1.10 and profit is about 7.1m. In round 2 the heat harm surfaces: reputation falls 16 points to about 41 and the multiplier drops to about 0.89. Lost sales cost another 0.96m. The supplier harm is still hidden and waits for round 3.

Shocks that can hit

The facilitator draws one event card before rounds 2 and 3. It changes the market from that round on.

A whistleblower leaks an internal memo. A former manager leaks board minutes to a news site. Every hidden harm surfaces one round earlier than planned.
A rider's video goes viral. A rider films himself collapsing in 47°C heat. Millions watch. Any harm from the heat dilemma now hits reputation twice as hard.
An investor demands an ESG report. Your largest investor wants an audited ESG report. Unprovable green claims will be penalised hard, and honest disclosure is rewarded.
New guidance on midday outdoor work. The labour ministry extends the midday work ban to delivery riders. Boards that kept full midday service face a AED 1.5m fine; pausing costs nothing extra.
Data-protection regulator audit. The data-protection regulator audits delivery apps. Selling identifiable data now brings a fine and surfaces at once; anonymised deals are checked for re-identification.

The model behind the game

Reputation with hidden debt. Each option has a profit effect now and a hidden harm that may surface one or two rounds later. Reputation decays slowly towards average but falls fast when harms are revealed, and it multiplies all future profit.

R_{t+1} = (1 − d)·R_t + d·50 − Σ_k e_k·1[harm k revealed at t] + goodwill ; profit = (base + Σ option effects + ongoing streams)·(0.4 + 1.2·R/100) − fines − 0.06·revealed harm

Consequences lens: Judge an action by its results: the greatest good and least harm for everyone affected (utilitarian).
Rights lens: Judge an action by duties and rights that must be respected, whatever the outcome.
Fairness lens: Judge an action by fair process and fair shares of benefits and burdens (justice).
Character lens: Ask what a good company with integrity would do (virtue ethics).
Stakeholder: Anyone affected by a decision: riders, workers, customers, suppliers, investors, regulators, the public.
Hidden harm: A cost of a decision that is not visible today but can surface later and damage reputation.
Greenwashing: Making environmental claims that are vague, exaggerated or cannot be proven.
Algorithmic fairness: Checking that an automated system does not treat groups of people worse without good reason.

For facilitators 3 rounds · about 50 minutes

Set-up

Team mode works best, with 3–5 students per board and at least four boards. Bots fill up to four.
Allow 8 minutes per round. Rounds 2 and 3 need extra talk time because of the tribunal.
Before round 1, stress that each option's profit is this round only and that another board will read the justification.
Put the four lenses on the projector so teams can name the one they used.

Modes

Team: Each team is one board and debates every dilemma together. Roles help: the Lead decides, the Voice writes the justification, Risk leads the tribunal.
Individual: Each student runs a board alone and is judged by another student. It is fast, but there is less debate, so give more time to the debrief.
Hybrid: Each student runs their own board, but team members sit together and compare reasoning. The team leaderboard averages members' scores.

Run sheet

Before class	Open the facilitator console on the projector laptop, choose the mode in Setup, and check the QR shows.
0–5 min	Students scan and join. Read the situation aloud while teams form. Point out the roles on their phones.
5–15 min	Round 1: 8 minutes to decide and predict, then Reveal. Read the headline and one surprising line from a team.
Between rounds	Draw or choose the event card. Give teams 30 seconds to read it before opening the next round.
15–25 min	Round 2, then Reveal.
27–37 min	Round 3, then Final results: podium, awards and the score chart.
Last 12 min	Debrief with the questions below, then open reflections (4 minutes). Download the CSV.

What usually happens

Round 1 profits often reward the cheapest options. Ask the room to hold that ranking until round 3.
When the first harms surface in round 2, ask affected boards whether they saw the risk at the time.
Tribunals often condemn harshly but justify their own choices gently. Point out the double standard.
Event cards like the whistleblower or regulator audit change timing and cost. Ask who would leak, and why.
In round 3 the year-end review prices in every remaining harm. Use the final reputation bars to open the debrief.

Debrief questions

Which decision looked cheap in round 1 and expensive in round 3? When did you first see the cost?
Which lens did your tribunal reach for first when judging another board? Did it match the lens you used for your own decisions?
Which stakeholders never appeared in your justifications? Who paid for the profitable options?

Follow-up probes

Which stakeholder had no voice at your table, and how would they describe your decision?
Did your named lens actually drive the choice, or did you pick it afterwards?
Where did two lenses point to different options? How did you settle it?
Would your decision change if it were certain to become public tomorrow?
Was your tribunal verdict about the outcome or about the reasoning?
Which of today's choices would you defend to the people who lost most?

Reflection and evidence

Write a short public statement on one dilemma you decided. Explain what you chose and why, and name honestly which stakeholder lost. 80–120 words.

Students write 80–120 words on their phones. The Data tab exports every decision, result, prediction and reflection as one CSV for grading.

Console controls

Pause, extend or set the timer; step back a round
Draw, choose or write the event card
Move players, make a Lead, add computer players
Award or fine with a reason that appears on phones
Message every screen; hide names; spotlight a team
Keys: P projector mode, Q join QR