Business Ethics and Law - Essay Example

Business Ethics and Law A. Background A What will I do? I will blow the whistle on the inspection protocols at Delectables Corp. I will blow the whistle because the operation of the plant is already a hazard to the consumers and it will not be long that another Salmonella outbreak will happen again considering unsafe and unhygienic practices in the plant. In the long run, I think this is good for the company because it will keep them up in their to do the right thing and not ruin the Delectable brand when a Salmonella outbreak will happen again. A.2. Situation and advise Competition is the root cause of Delectables Corp disregard for proper food safety and quality control. Its market share is reduced by 5% while its competitor gained 6%. As a strategic response, Delectables intend to keep its prices in exchange of compromising quality. Obviously, quality needs to be improved in the plant and the person responsible for it, the Quality Control Director can only be effective if he has the support of the higher management of Delectables. At present, he does not have its support evident when he tried to implement the industry’s best practices of having a sample of one jar of peanut butter per production line every ½ hour. Apparently, management just want the Quailty Assurance’s stampad to approve its production evident with a sampling of one jar per production line every week. It is understandable that upper management is under pressure from the competition to lower its price. But it cannot do so at the expense of health and quality. In its effort to cut down cost, it became negligent (perhaps even deliberately) with health and quality standards that its production practices become a health risk and salmonella prone. One of the reason of this declining quality is the declining morale of the supervisors and workers on the floor due to their low wages and just wanted to keep their jobs thus the mediocre work and health risk quality practices. This mindset is reinforced by management’s negligent attitude towards quality knowing that it would cost them to implement quality. Thus, the poor practices for quality became a culture. B. Background Facts: Georgia’s FDA B.1. Role of government The state of Georgia is face with a multitude of problems in dealing with food safety issues at companies like Delectables. One of the most pressing problem it has that prevents it to become effective in its regulatory function is the lack of funding and manpower. It only has to 60 inspectors to look after 16,000 food businesses and this has severely limited its thoroughness of the state’s monitoring process. How might the state of Georgia better address its own challenges in dealing with the situation at Delectables? • In general, what steps can government take to encourage and support companies to act more socially responsibly? • Alternatively, should the state let food companies regulate themselves? How might industry self-regulation be compatible with protecting the public interest in food safety? To address its challenges, the state of Georgia’s FDA could overcome the challenge of its limited budet and manpower by focusing their energy on those companies who are potentially problematic to become effective with their mandates. The indications that there are companies violating the health standards are readily available such as the case filed by Delectable Corps former employee and all FDA has to do is to investigate it. Alternatively, FDA does not have to limit its power to policing businesses with their safety and health practices by monitorng and catching those who violates the government regulate about safety and quality. Instead FDA can promote socially responsible action by acknowledging and giving socially conscientious companies a stamp of approval that the company could advertise to promote confidence about the company among its customers. This would have economic bearing to the bottom line of the company and would help enhance the company’s competitiveness. The government however must still not abandon its regulatory and monitoring function to safeguard the public against businesses who would take advantage of consumers that will instead produce substandard products such as what Delectables Corp is doing instead of producing high quality products as the company’s socially conscientious business practice. C. Supervisor case 1. On red tagged cases of peanut butter The proposal of shipping cases of contaminated peanut butter to San Lopez is just wrong both ethically and legally. Legally, the act constitutes pilferage or the act of stealing from the company. Selling them to the population of San Lopez is also violative of company policy on quality to dispose contaminated peanut butter which are tagged as red. Shipping the cases of red tagged Delectables peanut butter to San Lopez would again constitute another act that is violative of the law – that is bribing government officials for the products to go through. The proposal is also downright unethical. The proposal of selling contaminated peanut butters that would harm people just to benefit themselves is just utterly wrong. Also, putting the company (Delectables) in a bad light by selling its contaminated product is tantamount to moral callousness. Plainly, the proposal was wrong and criminal and I will directly tell the supervisor that it is wrong and that I will not be a party to his evil plan and will report him instead. 2. On yellow tagged cases of peanut butter My analysis on the yellow tagged cases would still be the same because there is still a possibility that the products are contaminated. And elling them without the company’s knowledge is still pilferage and the possibility of health risk to the consumers is still there. I still will not be a party to it and I am still reporting the supervisor to the management. D. Based on parts a,b and c background facts. It is important to mention that not all legally acceptable acts and policies are ethical. In fact, Crane and Matten elaborated that most of the time, ethics comes in when the legal aspect cannot legislate (2006). In the case of Delectables Corp, it may be legally acceptable to pay people basement wages because they are low skilled and may not find any work somewhere else. In its products, the FDA may have certified them to pass quality standards but it does not mean that their actual and real business practice reflects quality that makes the product safe for public consumption. The case of Delectables Corp of selling substandard peanut butters is one of the most common case of business’ unethical practices whereby companies only satisfy the minimum requirement of the law albeit its actual business operation is far from what is supposed to be done. This is a common business malpractice where businesses will just comply to legalese to shield themselves from any regulatory liability. The most applicable business ethics that in this case is the virtue ethics which is part of deontological ethics to do the right thing regardless of circumstances or consequence. Doing the right thing as a business entity is a good CRM (Corporate Responsibility Management) because it does not only remove the possibility of being burdened by legal liability from the company but rather gives more value to the company because it would earn the goodwill and trust of its customers which would translate into brand loyalty and patronage that would ultimately enhance its bottomline and make it more profitable in the long run. Reference Crane, Andrew; Matten, Dirk (2006). Business Ethics, 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More