The Ethical Dilemma at Wholesome Hamburger Company and Chicken International Group - Assignment Example

 Wholesome Hamburger Company Scenario 1. What is the ethical dilemma or issue? Arguably, the ethical dilemma in this contextual case scenario is whether or not Wholesome Hamburger Company should abide by the provided advice of using less water, until the end of the big drought due to its occurrence and presence. With Wholesome Hamburger company operating within California, it is expected that as a result of the big drought that it will abide by the laid advice- use of less of water by every individual, resident, and organization operating in California. However, it is worth noting that, such will act as a challenge to the company since it requires a lot of water (2500 gallons in total) in the production of its products- walnuts, chicken, lettuce as well as beef. 2. What are the alternatives or possible courses of action? Identify at least three alternatives. To start with, the Wholesome Hamburger Company can embrace utilizing the advantage through the cheap government water, which will help it in production and provide its products to California's. Alternatively, the company can opt to preserve all its waters source which will enable it to have adequate water, therefore, allowing it to continue with its normal production. Lastly, the company can opt to cease from selling burgers, which will help in ensuring the availability of more water to California's since bugger is the company product that requires the greatest amount of water- 1800 gallons. 3. What are your recommendations? In other words, of the several alternatives you identified, what do you think the company should do? I would recommend that the company take and utilize cheap water, which is the advantage and opportunity being offered by the government. By doing so, the company will not encounter the challenge of water for its production hence it will not cease with its production especially for the beef burgers- the commodity requiring a lot of water for its production. Besides, the company can purchase a lot of the cheap water being offered by the government. It can use this water either selling it accompanying with its products to its clients or can preserve to use in future in case of a similar scenario or a situation characterized with the shortage of water. Such will help ensure that the company continues with its profitable business even during and with the big drought. 4. What is your rationale for your recommendations? In other words, why do you recommend this course of action? The reason backing up my recommendation is that, with an available opportunity for low-cost input, the company hence should not go for purchasing water at the high cost that will lead to high input cost. The high input cost will lead to the company increased its product prices (Rothman et al., 2016). Besides, through the company selling some of the water purchase along with its products to its clients, such has the likelihood and potential to facilitate the growth of trust to its customers, not to mention attracting more customers. Chicken International Group 1. What is the ethical dilemma or issue? Notably, the ethical dilemma within this particular case scenarios is whether or not, as the Chief Executive Officer of the Chicken International Group, should use the term “free range” on the company products, through labeling them. Such is an ethical dilemma since, through embracing the above, it will be profitable, but there are some related constraints such as the likelihood to lose some chickens based on the definition of the term. 2. What are the alternatives or possible courses of action? Identify at least three alternatives. First, as the Chief Executive Officer of the Chicken International Group, I can consider using the term "free range," which will account me labeling the products. Such will help improve the profit margins of the company. Worth noting is that I will consider embracing the aspect in the case where I have a lot of chickens, since, any loss of a few chickens arising from their wander may not influence the reduction of the company profit margin. Alternatively, in the case I have few chicken, I will not consider allowing the use of the term "free-range," since any loss of chicken, will account to the company encountering losses and rather not profit. 3. What are your recommendations? In other words, of the several alternatives you identified, what do you think the company should do? As the Chief Executive Officer of the Chicken International Group I would advise labeling the products “free range" in the case there are many chickens, but if there are very few chickens, the company should not embrace the idea. Such is aimed at embracing the only action that has high possibility and likelihood to resulting in profits and rather not the loss. Besides, I would recommend the company considering having numerous chickens, so that, in the case it has to embrace the practice of " free range" then, if wandering of the chicken will lead to loss of a few chicken, the company will still achieve profit margins. As such, the company requires targeting more production of the chicken if only it seeks to embrace the concept and practice. However, in the case that the Chicken International Group company will not consider more production of chicken, and if it has to embrace the concept and practice of "free range", then the contextual company has to ensure that, during the 5 minutes period for chicken wandering, the company will assign personnel to monitor the movement of chicken- such will reduce chances of losing the chicken. 4. What is your rationale for your recommendations? In other words, why do you recommend this course of action? Arguably, the rationale behind choosing to embrace the practice and concept of labeling the chicken as the product with the term “free range” is that its advantages outdo the presence of adverse effects. Although embracing the concept might lead to the concept of losing some chickens, in the case the company embraces better, workable and relevant monitoring strategies, such will limit the occurrence of the loss of the chicken. In such a case, or even if there is the loss of some chicken, considering the 20% profit increment margin, such accounts for embracing the practice of labeling the chicken with the term "free range ," having an outstanding benefit which overrides on its negative effects. Worth noting is, the ultimate goal of a company whenever embracing any new concept and practice ought to be ensuring that its benefits outdo the negative impacts, and ultimately, it achieves an additional profit from such- a similar case in this scenario( Esteves & Barclay, 2011). References Rothman, D., Tillmann, P., & Toniatti, D. (2016). The Economics of Pass-Through with Production Constraints. Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 12(2), 279-285. Esteves, A. M., & Barclay, M. A. (2011). Enhancing the benefits of local content: integrating social and economic impact assessment into procurement strategies. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 29(3), 205-215. Read More