Business Law and Ethics - Essay Example

Business law and ethics A1. Inspection protocol violation As a quality control manager, I would ask myself the viability of blowing the whistle. Will it jeopardize my position? Will it be in due care of the general public? Is it cost effective? What are the violated protocols? Are there any measures that can be taken to avoid these actions? I would apply the social contract theory of business ethics where the general public is put in mind. The violations may be detrimental to the whole if these processes continue. Due care in moral ethical grounds would be at the core of my decision making process. Business ethical standards requires employees to act in due care not to cause harm to the consumer. The utilitarian ethics is also considered in this case. I would act in a manner that favors the greatest number of people. The stakeholder’s theory as well stockholder theory still will be analyzed. These are in matters of my duties and obligation to these parties. A rationale is laid down on the action to adopt which affects the biggest number of people. An analysis of the cost outlay and benefit is down in this case. Further I would assess what other people have done in such situations and look into my rights in law. In light to these, I would blow the whistle on the violations of the inspection protocols of Delectables. A great number of risk and benefits is involved here. The first risk is losing my job since it will entail exposing the organization’s bad conduct. The other risk would involve the loss to the company. The company stands at facing a major litigation that would lead to high consumer base loss. This in turn would case reduced turnover. On the contrary, there are benefits that stand in blowing the whistle. These entail the duty owed to the public. The social aspect of honouring and acting in due care is at the core of my decision making process. The risk of the contaminating salmonella is too high should the process of violation continue. The harm to the public could be damaging if this behaviour progresses. The factors that I would consider include: safety to the public at large, the environmental damage and further the cost benefit analysis. I would not sign the quality control form because the company is in violation of the ethical standards of safety. A2. How to improve the food safety and quality control situation (FSQC) The root cause of contamination is the hygiene aspect. The protocols laid down have all been violated. The staff wears their uniform at home thereby placing a risk of carrying the bacteria to the production area, the storage of raw peanuts and the roasted peanuts risks contamination and further the leakages in the production area. Cleanliness is vital in the production area of a food manufacturing industry. To improve this situation, a set of rules will be designed. I would advise the management to restate the rules of observing cleanliness as well as quality. This sensitization should start from the production line managers who violate the controls process. The key to do so is to acknowledge the work they do and set a reward for them. The quality check on a daily basis for every batch may be expensive but the benefits therefrom are more important. I would advise the control check for every batch and the yellow and red labels to be followed to the order. Supervision should be tightened to avoid the contaminated batches finding their way back to the sales and dispatch area. The storage area should be separated in matters of roasted peanuts kept aside from raw peanuts. A quality control director cannot be effective in this environmental culture. This is because he is the one and only person who is seen as a threat by all other junior employees. He stands a risk of his work being jeopardized by the foremen and line producers. They have their targets on production therefore they would do anything to reach those targets. The upper management should address situations of communication and the chain of command. The foremen and line managers should obey the instructions of the quality control director. The workers are rude and unruly. The pressures I would face are uncooperative employees, meeting production target, corrupt deals from line managers, the government protocols, and the Food safety and quality control departmental protocols. The biggest challenge would be how to instill discipline, observation of rules and sustain business growth and survival all together. B. The role of the government in assuring food safety The government owes the public duty of care and avoidance of harm. It has a responsibility for consumer protection and providing quality food from these industries. The law thus provides for food safety and quality control acts. The government should do a data analysis on quality control and monitor this on a regular basis (Knechtges, 415). The state of Georgia owes a duty to its people in providing safe food for human consumption. Job creation has instead been put forefront for Delectables. The state should deploy its quality inspectorate team to assess the food and quality controls of the company. It should aim to keep the company afloat as well as produce quality and safe food for consumption. The state should assign several inspectors to be doing quality assessment for these big corporates. The target market for the peanut industry is way too big to be ignored. The outbreak of salmonella can be curbed from the factory as well continue its operations. Food safety is at the core of this matter irregardless of shortages in the Food and Drug Administration. C. Legal and ethical issues Shipment of the red tagged batches is a violation of the quality control act. This is because these batches are already contaminated with salmonella at high percentage. The supervisor’s act of shipment goes against the utilitarian theory because it is will because more harm than good. Releasing the contaminated products will lead to an outbreak which in turn will cost the government a good deal of money to curb the outbreak. The shipment is done to another state which is in violation of that state since they have to pay for this product import duty as well as any other tariffs tied along with the import. It is unethical to tarnish the name of the Georgia through exports of contaminated food products. Legally, the supervisor is under breach of law since the red batches should be thrown out. A cost benefit analysis in this case is mandated since one batch can cost loss of lives in the state of San Lopez. San Lopez can exercise its legal rights and sue the state of Georgia for damages caused. If the batches were tagged yellow, my analysis would differ in that the whole batch may not be fully contaminated. The salmonella contamination is mild in this case and can be curbed easily. The batch should be retested again on a sample basis and then shipped to San Lopez. The cost of testing a few more samples is minimal but it clears the danger of causing harm to the public. The yellow stickers represent mild contaminations while the red batches contain high risk of contamination. Testing every item in the red batch should be done unlike the sampling method in the yellow sticker batches. d. Advice to Delectables It is illegal to ship goods that are contaminated to other states. The federal government can sue for any harm resulting from the consumption of such food products. It is illegal to pay any sum of money at the customs check point since this is unethical. San Lopez supermarket has a right to charge a fee in accordance to accepting products for sale. It is not illegal but unethical to charge such a high amount of money i.e. $250,000. The extra $25000 is justified to place the products at the eyes level. This is a business strategy and it is ethical. However, it is unethical of the supermarket to accept contaminated food products for sale. The supermarket can be sued for damages caused as they were aware of the facts before hand. To the management team of delectables, it is in order to do voluntary control checks in the peanut butter produced. This is because the risk of the media exposing the company for such a violation is detrimental. Customers would avoid buying these products despite the fact it may be true or false. The government does not require the industry to inform the public nor the government of contamination. In conclusion, it is far much detrimental if the exposure is made to the public. A cost benefit analysis shows that inspecting batches on a daily basis reduces the risk of legal suits and even forceful closure of the company. The benefit enjoyed from doing so is that the company stands a chance of survival and growth (Knechtges, 419). Ethical standards should be maintained at all times. Work cited. Knechtges, John. Food Safety: Theory and Practice. Sudbury Massachusetts, United States. Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2011. 415-421. Read More