Risk Factors for Mistreatment of Whistleblowers - Assignment Example

? of the of the Number Business PART A Whistle Blowing: Wise or not? The case of Delectables clearly underlines the food safety issues being faced by the company. The study made it evident that due to lack of proper control mechanisms, the company is unable to maintain the highest standard of foods. There are several cases raised against the company related to the food safety problems. For example, in the year 2005 two people died from the salmonella poisoning from Delectable Peanut Butter. In addition, similar cases were also recorded, where customers claimed of salmonella poisoning. Interestingly, none of the cases were proved and as a result of that the company saved millions of dollars. On the contrary, some of the other food companies, whose outbreak of salmonella bacteria was confirmed, had to pay huge sums of money as a penalty in litigation. Moreover, it also resulted in a loss of market share for those companies. However, when it comes to Delectables, initially it was difficult to find the actual cause behind the quality issues of their manufactured foods. Another startling fact is that despite the presence of quality control director at the factory, the company is miserably failing to maintain a standard quality. In-depth analysis of the company has made it evident that there are large loop holes in the quality checking mechanism of Delectables. Nevertheless, the disturbing fact is the intentional breach of ethical guidelines by the supervisors (Jennings 279). On analyzing the scenario of the factory as well as the market reputation of the company, there is no way other than blowing whistle against the supervisors. Although this step is sure to hamper the relationship between myself and supervisors of the factory, but it is wise to save the life of customers and create a good reputation for the company in the market; rather than taking unethical approach. Moreover, my job responsibility is to increase the efficiency of the plant, save cost and improve plant operations, but that does not mean adopting unethical stance. I have asked myself whether I should take the side of unethical approach or should I perform by duty honestly, the only answer to this to carry out the duties and achieve excellence through hard work. My decision to blow the whistle is also supported by the theory proposed by Lilanthi Ravishankar. The author believes that internal whistle blowing can wonders to firms and is often highly effective (“Ravishankar”). In addition, the actual problems are identified easily and can be directly addressed result in a quicker and effective solution. It is believed that the decision to blow the whistle will actually satisfy several stakeholder groups of the company. The theory of stakeholders also supports this point of view. According to the traditional views, shareholders or the stockholders are the owners of the company and their prime interest is to increase the firm’s value irrespective of the impact on the external environment. However, the present stakeholder theory argues that a company has several stakeholder groups’ namely political groups, governmental bodies, trade union, trade association, employees, suppliers, customers, competitors and financier among others. Hence, from this theory it is evident that a minor flaw of the company could adversely affect each of these stakeholder groups. Therefore my decision to blow the whistle for the sake of saving the organization’s reputation and satisfying stakeholders is justified. However, there are several risks associated with whistle blowing. Some of the major ones are stated below: - One of the major risks of whistle blowing can be mistreatment. This mistreatment can be from both employees as well as the management of the company. The probability of mistreatment increases by the employees increases, if more than one employee is accused. In the similar way, the management of the company can mistreat the whistle blower if investigation is not kept internal by the assigned employee or there is no positive outcome from investigation (“Risk factors for mistreatment of whistleblowers”). Another major risk can appear in the form of conflict with the colleagues. If the whistle blowing role is exposed, employees may tend to behave insolently. As a result of that the employee may underperform. Whistle blowing also has certain benefits. One of the biggest advantages of whistle blowing is that it promotes honesty and integrity within organization. In addition, promoting whistle blowing allows companies to reduce deception levels and protect clientele (“the importance of whistle blowing”). Therefore measuring and comparing the magnitude of the risk factors and benefits, it is evident that whistle blowing is effective when there is a valid cause and can save customers form ill-happenings. Hence, it is wise to blow the whistle and not sign on the quality control form. Improvement of Food Safety The study has made it clear that the root of food safety issues lie in quality control mechanism. Despite the appointment of Quality Control Director, the food safety is not being assured. Realistically, the position cannot be tagged as ineffective, rather the workings of the director are ineffective and as a result of that the quality of the foods are not getting tested properly. The upper management cannot be blamed as they have already appointed a quality control director to oversee the quality of output. The main issue lies with the foremen on the factory floor. They avoid testing product quality in order to meet their daily production targets and earn incentives. Therefore, the company is advised to focus more on quality rather than concentrating on the quantity of production. Hence, they should reduce the daily production targets and foster supervisors to focus on the quality. In addition, the company is also advised to make testing production line once in a day. It is believed that these approaches will assist the company to control food quality issues. PART B Role of Governments In general, government agencies are responsible for setting the standards of food safety. In addition they are also liable to ensure the safety standards are met. However in doing so, government agencies have to deal with several challenges (“what government does”). It is obvious from the study that government of Georgia is failing to do proper monitoring of the food business for the principal purpose of shortage of state inspectors. Moreover, the state inspectors and underfunded and as a result of that proper monitoring sometimes becomes a difficult task. The economic downturn has further increased the challenges of the government. Due to the recession, a number of businesses are closing down and people are getting unemployed. However, Delectables continues to employs large number of population of the country. Role of Georgia Government Despite that the government of Georgia should play active roles in managing the food safety issues of the state. Since, a number of alleged food safety outbreaks have been already witnessed against Delectables, the government must be more careful. Further, there are also cases of demise after consuming Delectables’ peanuts. In order address this issue, the government of Georgia should take the following steps: - The state must try to increase the number of state inspectors so that the monitoring of the food businesses becomes more effective. In addition, the more budget should be allocated to this activity. The government of Georgia should set standards for food safety and is also recommended to maintain a strong enforcement program to deal with those companies who are not abiding by the law. The inspectors should make frequent visit to the plants in order to cross check the quality of foods being manufactured by the companies such as Delectables. The government is also recommended to make the companies more socially responsible (Jennings 117). This can be done by providing incentives to the companies in the form of reduced corporate taxes. Finally, it is also recommended that the government should regulate the industry and maintain a standard to ensure hygienic foods are reached to the end customers. PART C Legal and Ethical Issues The case study has clearly revealed several ethical and legal issues being raised by the supervisor. The most preeminent one is the notion of product dumping. Product dumping is itself is an illegal activity. Product dumping is usually defined as one of the practices of selling goods in a foreign country or market at a less price than the price being offered in the domestic country or in the local market, and selling it at a low price than the total cost of manufacturing (“Moffatt”). In order to deal with this companies or government run anti-dumping campaigns and activities (Raslan 2). On the other hand, the ethical issues being portrayed in the conversation was related to the selling of rejected products. Moreover, consumption of these products can adversely affect the health of the people. Hence, there is a clear Brach of ethical guidelines by the supervisor and the foreman. The ethical theorises also portrays the similar viewpoints. Dumping Issues The idea of product dumping came into light out of sheer voracity. Although, the managers and the foreman stated about the improved immune system of the people of San Lopez, there are still possibilities of sickness for the purpose of consuming products with parasites and bacteria like salmonella (Giannakopoulos 4; Jennings 325). In addition, selling of these products is highly unethical. Hence, dumping of the red stickered products will be always resisted. When it comes to the use of yellow marked products, similar stance will be adopted. This is principally because of the fact that these products can also have certain unwanted materials in the form of parasites and bacteria. Although, the volume of unwanted substances will be comparatively less, still it can create different type of diseases. The people of San Lopez also have health issues in the form of gastric and hence the impact could be adverse. In the meantime, it should be also noted that if the yellow stickered products are reassessed and treated, there is a possibility of those products getting fixed. This will in turn ensure safety foods being sold to the end customers. This approach will also allow the company to not carry out product dumping activities; rather there will be no requirement of doing. Hence, from the overall view point, the yellow stickered products should be reassessed and depending on the results, either it should normally sell or it must be disposed. PART D The scenario highlights about the intentions of Delectables to sell their damaged products at a low cost. However, in order to ensure hassle free selling, the company has to incur huge cost. For example, the super market demanded $250,000 dollars to sell the products. Additional $25,000 is also demanded for increasing the visibility. In the similar ways, money needs to be paid to the custom officials, duty inspectors and other vendors. The financial figures clearly, suggest that the company will have incurred loss even if they are to sell these items. Moreover, the sellers are not able to affirm that all the products will be sold out. There may be cases that the demand of the peanut falls and some products get damaged. In this scenario, Delectables is again liable to buy back the products from the sellers. Hence, the company has to extra cost for selling these peanuts and is logically not feasible (“Gatti, Ogrady and Morgan”). Apart from the financial issues, end consumers after consuming it can have any kind of disease. As a result of that a bad word of mouth for the company may take place, which may hamper the reputation of the company. The company is therefore recommended to hold back their idea of dumping the products. Moreover, this stance will also save the company from bribing government officials to sell their products, which is again an unethical activity (“United States Department of Justice”). Works Cited “Gatti, Margaret M., Clive R. G. Ogrady and O. Forrest Morgan. “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.” Findlaw. Thomson Reuters, 1997. Web. 22 June 2013. Giannakopoulos, Themistoklis K. A Concise Guide to the EU Anti-Dumping/Anti-Subsidies Procedures. Amsterdam: Kluwer Law International, 2006. Print. Jennings, Marianne M. Business Ethics: Case Studies and Selected Readings: Case Studies and Selected Readings. 7th ed. Connecticut: Cengage Learning, 2011. Print. Moffatt, Mike. “Definition of Dumping.” About. About.com. 2010. Web. 22 June 2013. Raslan, Reem Anwar Ahmed. Antidumping: A Developing Country Perspective. Amsterdam: Kluwer Law International, 2009. Print. Ravishankar, Lilanthi. “Encouraging Internal Whistleblowing in Organizations.” Scu. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, 2012. Web. 22 June 2013. “Risk factors for mistreatment of whistleblowers.” Epress. n.p., n.d. Web. 22 June 2013. “The importance of Whistle blowing.” Astronsolutions. Astron Solutions, 2010. Web. 22 June 2013. United States Department of Justice. “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.” 2002. PDF File. “What Government Does.” Foodsafety. U. S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2013. Web. 22 June 2013. Read More