The purpose of this article is to present a business ethics case from the viewpoint of discursive ethics. Dialogue and subsequent agreement constitute two key ideas of European identity and are two basic concepts of discursive ethics thinking. Our choice for this type of approach was determined by several reasons, of which there are three that should be pointed out, as they can be considered an heritage of the European way of thinking:
1) the need for a rational dialogue, in which all those affected -- or, failing that, the people acting in their name -- are represented, as a way to find solutions to conflicts;
2) the importance of respecting a set of conditions ensuring equal opportunities and total symmetry among the participants; and
3) obliged respect for the universalization principle, which establishes that a decision is morally correct when it can or could be accepted by all those whom it affects, present or future.
In order to present this case, the following steps are taken. Firstly, a brief summary of the case will be provided, defining the different ways of approaching the problem and the resulting map of interests. Secondly, the different interests and values, which came into play, are analysed. Finally, we go over the different approaches that were made to reach a solution before considering dialogue, which turned out to be the most decisive.