First and foremost, the notion of PSIs is one that has been investigated for over fifty years and probes to pose a conflict in the arenas ob business and direct sales. PSIs are exactly what they sound like: they are incentives offered by manufacturers to salespeople. These incentives serve to encourage the salespeople to promote certain products often to the neglect of other competing products. One can clearly see the ethical dilemma posed by PSIs as they are sometimes equated to bribes in that their underlying purpose is to motivate the compensated salespeople to offer advice to a customer that might contradict their true feelings on the product as well as illicit a recommendation that might not have necessarily occurred in the absence of the incentive. If a salesperson is charged with the responsibility of selling a full array of products, how can he/she is good conscious sell products to a client who may be inferior or may not necessarily meet the requirements requested by the customer Additionally, how are we to justify the bias that the presence of PSIs introduces into the selling process. This raises a very prudent concern in that the stakeholders may be given an inaccurate picture of the quality of the product through the use of deceptive sales practice (Radin amp. Oppenheimer, 2002).
Another ethical issue raised within the field of sales is the notion that many salespersons are obligated to sell all of the products carried by a store. In some instances, the salesperson is aware of the fact that the product could possibly pose harm to the customer. In the course of a sale, the customer may reveal information to the salesperson which indicates that the product may not be good for the customer. For example, if a customer reveals that he/she suffers from a bad back and would like to purchase a sofa. The store may have only one sofa that fits the customer’s need but it may be inappropriate for his/her bad back.