Background: Global Events Solutions $($GES$)$ is a well$-$respected company in the MEEC industry, known for organizing major international conventions. During the planning of a high$-$profile technology conference, GES faced a series of ethical challenges that tested its commitment to integrity. The main players in this case were Sarah Mills, a senior event manager at GES, and Thomas Brooks, a representative from Premier Venue Services $($PVS$),$ the company bidding to be the main supplier for the event.Part $1$: Ethical Challenges$1.$ Supplier Relations and Contract Acquisition:Dilemma: Thomas, eager to secure the contract for PVS$,$ offered Sarah a lucrative "fam" $($familiarization$)$ trip to an exclusive resort, all expenses paid. Although the trip was framed as an opportunity for Sarah to assess PVSs event capabilities, it clearly carried the risk of being viewed as an attempt to unduly influence her decision$-$making.Ethical Response: Sarah consulted GESs ethics policy, which prohibited the acceptance of gifts or incentives that could affect impartiality. She politely declined the trip and instead suggested an on$-$site visit to evaluate PVS facilities without any special perks$\mathrm{.}2.$ Overstatement and Overestimation:Dilemma: During negotiations, PVS presented a proposal that exaggerated their service capabilities, including amenities that were not available at the time. This overstatement was discovered when Sarah requested detailed documentation and service records.Ethical Response: Sarah communicated her concerns to Thomas, emphasizing the importance of transparent and honest representations. PVS revised their proposal, aligning it with their current capabilities to maintain trust and credibility$\mathrm{.}3.$ Intellectual Material Ownership:Dilemma: The conference agenda included several keynote speakers whose content was owned by third$-$party organizations. Sarah had to ensure that GES had the proper licenses and rights to use this material in conference presentations and promotional material.Ethical Response: Sarah worked with GESs legal department to secure licenses and permissions. This proactive step helped prevent potential legal issues related to the unauthorized use of intellectual property$\mathrm{.}4.$ Special Considerations and Favors:Dilemma: During the planning phase, a senior executive from one of the key sponsors requested that GES provide preferential seating and exclusive access to high$-$profile speakers for their VIP clients. This request conflicted with GESs policy of fair treatment for all event attendees.Ethical Response: Sarah decided to uphold GESs policy and communicated to the sponsor that all attendees would have equal opportunities to interact with speakers and enjoy the event. While the decision risked the loss of a significant sponsorship, it reinforced GESs commitment to fairness and integrity.Part $2$: Outcomes and Lessons LearnedGES successfully hosted the technology conference, earning widespread praise for its transparency, professionalism, and commitment to ethical standards. Sarahs decisions not only preserved the company's reputation but also strengthened partnerships based on trust and honesty.Key Takeaways:Upholding ethical practices, even when faced with enticing shortcuts or pressures, is crucial for long$-$term success in the MEEC industry.Transparent communication and adherence to clear ethical guidelines help avoid conflicts of interest and maintain credibility with clients and partners.Challenges and Considerations:Ethical decisions can sometimes result in short$-$term losses, such as declined incentives or sponsor dissatisfaction. However, these decisions build long$-$term trust and integrity.Clear ethical policies and training empower employees to make sound decisions when navigating complex scenarios.