A Companion to Business Ethics - Term Paper Example

? Business ethics By Management of Introduction Business ethics refers to a form of professional conduct, which focuses on the moral principles that exists or arise in a business milieu. The ethics are relevant to workers and employers’ conduct. It is imperative to note that, the business ethics consists of both the expressive and normative dimensions. This paper intends to examine, the extent of application of business ethics in the prevailing situation at Delectables. Essentially, what is happening in Delectables is deplorable (STERNBERG, 2000). The situation is unexplainable. Indeed the new manger requires a lot of patience, inquiry to all procedures, consultations wit all the stakeholders and apt application of all the business ethics. It observable that, the business ethical conduct should be applied without fear or favor. It is expensive for the company to neglect business ethics (STEWART, 2006). The business ethics aspects touch all the sectors of an organization. For instance, the fairness in trading activities, sales practices, internal audit, transparency and fairness in human resource and so many others. Management, transparency in marketing strategies, safety in production process and many others. In essence, the business ethical conduct is a wide area, which includes numerous aspects (SORELL & HENDRY, 2004). However, there are some key departments such as production, which should be given much concentration particularly on the Delectable’s case. This paper intends to analyze the Delectable’s case in form of questions and providing of opinions. It is imperative to not that, the Delectables’case raises numerous questions on the intentions of both the management and employees. Consider the following analysis. Part A 1. What would you do? Would you blow the whistle? As a middle level manager and with the happenings at Delectables, an ethical manager should raise a whistle to unearth the events and behavior practiced by the employees. Indeed the status of Delectables depicts a rotten society that does not care about the welfare of others. Indeed, numerous questions arise when considering this case. The very first question that needs to be answered through a research is the reason as to why Delectables, which commands 35% of the market niche, is facing financial constraints (SNOEYENBOS, ALMEDER & HUMBER, 2001). Despite the competition created by Prince’s fare and the prevailing overall market conditions, there must be other self caused factors for the falling trend of the this company. Indeed, from the case, it is observable that, the prevailing conditions in the market space contribute partially to the straining trend of Delectables. A fair part of the financial constraints in this company is a product of the self-caused conditions. These conditions have immensely played a role in diminishing the brand and reputation of Delectable’s. Delectables company’s decline falls further indicated in the fall of the stock price. A thorough research should be done to ascertain the appropriate answers to this question. The perceived research however has some indications of the perceived answers (SHAW, 2000). For instance, the company recorded few food safety cases in 2005, but the recent reports from Georgia plant were the manager reported the presence of Salmonella in peanut butter and similar salmonella food poisoning alleged to have been discovered in the Delectables peanut butter chocolate bars is adequate evidence to link the company with the food salmonella food poisoning. In actual sense, the question that comes out is the reasons why Delectables refused to release the laboratory tests carried out on the alleged presence of the salmonella (SAGEN, 2002). The business ethics and principles do not give room for limited information dissemination on the status of products especially on the safety and health of the consumers. The issue of salmonella food poisoning might be the major cause of the declining of the company’s profitability base. Considering the working behavior of the staff, particularly the production unit, it can be attested that, most of the products that go to the market might be contaminated (ROSSOUW & VAN VUUREN 2010). This is a close representation of the price fall of the Delectables’ products. Indeed, to save the company from further fall in competition and consequent decline in profits, it is advisable to raise a whistle on the manner in which production process is handled. It is a risky venture for the employees in the production unit to store raw materials (peanuts) in open crates next to the open vats of peanuts butter. This action contributes to rusty elements of peanuts. In addition, the roof of the factory and some windows leaks extensively especially during a rainstorm (NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS ETHICS, & HOFFMAN 1994). This is a significant threat to the building up of the salmonella network since the water creates a conducive milieu of breeding of contaminants, if the rainstorm occurred during the weekend when the immediate repair cannot be done. With the few but significant instances, which can cause serious cases of salmonella existence in the Delectables’ products, apt measures in the production and quality control should be undertaken seriously without leaving any single product in speculation (VALLANCE, 2005). It is observable that, the top management has a hint that, the complaints of food salmonella poisoning might be truly attributed to the company’s careless moves and actions in sensitive units such as production (MOON, 2001). Indeed the hiring of the quality control manager a month ago is a conformation of the speculation. As a middle level manager, swift moves should be undertaken to ensure the office of the quality manger is tighten up and improved. It might be possible that, the workers are not ready to appreciate the checks and controls initiated by the quality control manager, because of the status of his office and his simple outlook. The first move therefore is to ensure a deeper extent of appreciation of the quality control director (MCGEE, 2002). The staff should be required to be trained on the benefits of adhering to the quality controls checks and marks. Benefits and risks attributed to the blowing of the whistle It imperative to note that, the employees being illiterate and illegal immigrants have not been introduced to training sessions intended to train them in tandem with the dynamic trends of the global markets. This will form one of the initial steps that should be appreciated to ensure change of attitude in the employee’s mindset (LIEBIG, 2000). A positive mindset is a strong aspect of motivation. This move is intended in improving the efficiency of operations and save costs. It is notable that a lot of money would be spent in marketing the product because of the negative image or branding that emanates from poor production and packaging processes, which results to food poisoning. Another question that would longer my mind is the suspended of the plant manager at Georgia plant. The manager raised a critical concern on the possibility of existence of salmonella (GRACE & COHEN, 2005). However, the risks attributed to the move of blowing the whistle remain evident. Some of the risks include resistance to adjust to the new system of operations, possibility of several employees loosing jobs especially those who would defy the quality control guidelines. In addition, the company will have stretch a bit further to sustain the intended training sessions for employees. The benefits of blowing the whistle are more compared to the risks. This is because the benefits are long lasting. On the other hand, the avoiding blowing the whistle is a move to postpone blowing of the whistle is delaying to solve a problem, which will pile and become a disaster (JENNINGS, 2008). Effectiveness of the Director of quality control The quality manager, might not be effective with the status, but if the recommended changes are done to his office and general presentation, then effectiveness which readily be attributed to the quality manager (HENCKE, 2001). The upper management has a serious problem of lacking the will of coordinating and promoting motivation of the employees. For instance, the image of the quality manager’s office is a clear indication of lack of motivation. Some of the measures to improve the food safety and quality control situation at the Delectable include adhering to the quality control checks (GARRETT, 2006). The tags and stickers intended for identification of the contaminated products should be adhered to the later. This will reduce the quantity of the contaminated products that go into the market. Do you see any issues with the workers and supervisors on the factory floor? Issues of the employees and supervisors on the factory floors are evident. The workers do not want to be instructed. In fact, they keep quiet, but follow what they are told by the lead supervisors (FREEMAN, 2001). This is great concern since it creates a big gap between the management and the employees. This is a challenge that needs to be addressed wit an immediate effect. There is need for the employees to understand the essence of protocol in any organization. This problem would be solved by training the employees on the need to understand and appreciate protocols in the organization (VELASQUEZ, 2002). Yes. The quality control form should be signed. This is ensuring that the trend of checking and confirming of the processes has begun. Even if the perfect processes may not be realized, it is better the processes to being, such that, even the incoming managers could follow suit (FREDERICK, 1999). PART B What role, if any, should government play in assuring food safety in the food industry in general? What role should Georgia play in assuring food safety at Delectables? The federal government department Through the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is entitled to play the role of providing food safety. The organization is faced by understaffing and overworking. The Georgian state officers are negligible compared to the number of the businesses, which stand at 16,000 businesses. The state of Georgia takes full responsibility in contracting the Federal Department authority services of monitoring of factories (FERRELL, FRAEDRICH & FERRELL, 2005). Some of the challenges the government faces include the understaffing and overworking. Delectables is a big company, which require immense labor force. The state of Georgia, think positively in a bid to reduce the problems it faces. The state of Georgia believes that, the need more labor in monitoring the Delectables factory. The government should institute legal policies related to social participation to influence the companies to commit some of tire energies, capital and other resources to the society (CHRYSSIDES, & KALER, 2003). The state should not give a leeway for companies to regulate themselves. This is because the companies require independent checkers, which will remain impartial and punctual in carrying out the duties. PART C What are the legal and ethical issues, if any, raised by the supervisor in Part C? Please include in your answer a consideration of the following: evaluate the supervisor’s arguments using the international business ethics theories and models that you learned. In fact, the supervisor does not respect the business and legal ethics. The argument that, the stickers should be removed and the products in the boxes sold to the san Lopezians, is both illegal and unethically accepted. On the point of legal point of view, if the products bring side effects to the San Lopezians, this will be treated as intentional food contamination (BRENKERT, & BEAUCHAMP, 2010). This is because, even after the indication of the boxes as contaminated, the stickers are removed and the products are sold to san Lopezians, because, there is no checking or regulations, which guide this exercise (THOMAS, 2011). The initial question was about dumping red sticker products in San Lopez. Would your analysis differ if the order were to dump yellow sticker products? Explain. Yes, my analysis remains the same because, the presence of stickers indicates some aspect of contamination, either wholly confirmed or unconfirmed (STEVENS, 2001). Fundamentally, the red stickers indicate that the whole batch is confirmed as contaminated, while the yellow stickers do not convincingly indicate contamination, however, dispositive results are observed. The confirmation of the batches with the yellow stickers might produce uncontaminated or contaminated results, so going head to supply the products to San Lopez without confirming the results, literally implies dumping (BOWIE, 2002). This action contravenes the generally accepted business ethics of not willingly subjecting an individual or a group of people to impacts resulting from the products supplied were you know that they do not measure up to the required standards and similarly you are aware of the resultant effects upon consumption of the products. PART D Please advise Delectables on what to do in each of the situations in Part D. As you do, please refer to what you have learned about the law and ethics. Are any of these situations legal but unethical? Is it possible for a situation to be legal but not ethical? The money required by San Lopez supermarket, in order to sell the product is a bribe, the other $100,000 and a further $500 are bribes for the Lopezians security and customs officers respectively (DE GEORGE, 2002). Considering the financial status of the company, it is advisable to shelve the idea of selling contaminated products to the San Lopezians people, and in fact, extra money of $ 375,000 was required as corruption to complete the deal. This is very expensive for the company, which mitt end up attaining less from the intended sale of the peanut products to the San Lopezians (ANOLD, 2002). It is imperative to note that, these situations are neither legal nor ethical. They are a representation of a rotten society, which does not accept the rule of law on corruption and does not appreciate the business ethics, which require the spirit of honesty to prevail in whatever circumstance of business transaction intended fro the last consumption to end up at the consumer (DIENHART & CURNUTT, 1998). In conclusion, the spirit of appreciation and embracing the ethical and legal requirements in the Delectables is non-existent. However, for better development based on the principle of honesty, it is significant the company’s top brass appreciate the legal and the business ethical conduct (SYDNEY WATER, 2006) List of References ANOLD, C.N (2005). Business ethics 1, Ethical theory, distributive justice, and corporate social responsibility. London, SAGE Publ. BOWIE, N. E. (2002). Business ethics. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall. BRENKERT, G. G., & BEAUCHAMP, T. L. (2010). The Oxford handbook of business ethics. Oxford, Oxford University Press. CHRYSSIDES, G. D., & KALER, J. H. (2003). An introduction to business ethics. London, Chapman & Hall. DE GEORGE, R. T. (2002). Business ethics. New York, Macmillan Pub. Co. DE GEORGE, R. T. (2010). Business ethics [...] XA-NL. Boston [u.a.], Prentice Hall. DIENHART, J. W., & CURNUTT, J. (1998). Business ethics: a reference handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif, ABC-CLIO. FERRELL, O. C., FRAEDRICH, J., & FERRELL, L. (2005). Business ethics: ethical decision making and cases. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co. FREDERICK, R. (1999). A companion to business ethics. Malden, Mass, Blackwell Publishers. FREEMAN, R. E. (2001). Business ethics: the state of the art. New York, Oxford University Press. GARRETT, T. M. (2006). Business ethics. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts. GRACE, D., & COHEN, S. (2005). Business ethics. Australia, Oxford University Press. HARTMAN, L. P. (2002). Perspectives in business ethics. Boston, McGraw-Hill. HENCKE, P. (2001). Business ethics. New York, National Institute of Business Management. JENNINGS, M. (2008). Business ethics. Mason, Ohio, South-Western LIEBIG, J. E. (2000). Business ethics: profiles in civic virtue. Golden, Colo, Fulcrum Pu MCGEE, R. W. (2002). Business ethics & common sense. Westport, Conn, Quorum Books. MOON, C. (2001). Business ethics. London, Economist. NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS ETHICS, & HOFFMAN, W. M. (1994). Emerging global business ethics. Westport, Conn, Quorum Books. ROSSOUW, D., & VAN VUUREN, L. (2010). Business ethics. Cape Town, Republic of South Africa, Oxford University Press. SAGEN, M.-G. (2002). Business ethics. [Iowa City, Iowa], Iowa Humanities Board. SHAW, W. H. (2000). Business ethics. Belmont, Calif, Wadsworth Pub. Co. SNOEYENBOS, M., ALMEDER, R. F., & HUMBER, J. M. (2001). Business ethics. Amherst, N.Y., Prometheus Books. SORELL, T., & HENDRY, J. (2004). Business ethics. Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann. STERNBERG, E. (2000). Just business: business ethics in action. Oxford, Oxford University Press. STEVENS, E. (2001). Business ethics. New York, Paulist Press. STEWART, D. (2006). Business ethics. New York, McGraw Hill. SYDNEY WATER. (2006). Business ethics. Sydney, Sydney Water. THOMAS, R. M. (2011). Business ethics. Bury St. Edmunds, Ethics International for Centre for Business and Public Sector Ethics. VALLANCE, E. (2005). Business ethics at work. Cambridge [England], Cambridge University Press. VELASQUEZ, M. G. (2002). Business ethics: concepts and cases. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall. Read More