Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
fall sick and took 23 lives. This was caused when the Listeria bacteria started
accumulating in of the meat slicing equipment in the plant. The Listeria bacteria is a
commonly found bacteria in all of the food that we consume and has been exposed,
affecting people with lower immunity. Thus, most cases of people affected by the
(http://www.mumj.org/Issues/v8_2011/articles/v8_65.pdf)
The most interesting part about the case is how Maple Leaf Foods reacted when the
officials tracked the contamination to products from their company and how Maple
Leaf Foods set an industry benchmark for ethical behavior. After looking at various
cases of ethical slips over the course of the month, it was critical to study how a
This reaction paper will analyze the main agents in the case and an opinion and
analysis of the ethical issues, then delve the various ethical models that depict the
behavior of the CEO and the firm, compare it with other firms globally who have
faced a similar predicament and finally conclude with answering the question about
The main active agent in the case is the CEO of Maple Leaf Foods, Michael McCain,
who not only accepted the fault but also won back customers because of his
transparency in dealing with the situation. The various departmental stores that
stored these contaminated products and the consumers who bought the meat are
passive agents.
Although the source of the contamination was not determined, officials were soon
zeroing down to the Maple Leaf plant in Toronto. This triggered the management of
Maple Leaf Food to act quickly and issue a voluntary recall of their products.
(http://www.swlawyers.ca/docs/Maple-Leaf-Case-Study_-_Colin-Stevenson.pdf). The
timing of their recall is very critical example of how the company was ready to take
ownership of the problem before someone pointed fingers. Within a few days of
voluntary the recall the lab tests revealed that Maple Leaf products tested positive
for contamination((http://www.swlawyers.ca/docs/Maple-Leaf-Case-Study_-_Colin-
Stevenson.pdf).). One would imagine that a company that found itself in this
situation would most probably deny the charges, and consult their legal teams to
find out how to evade the situation efficiently, but Maple Leaf gained the trust of
both media and the public by taking responsibility of the situation by the means of
McCain take full responsibility of the situation and apologize. The way the addressed
the audience was something very critical it sounded genuine. The CEO had very
empathetic and apologetic tone to his voice and was dressed in simple clothes,
clothes that a common man could relate with. The content of the speech displayed
genuine regret. These were the reasons why the public found it easier to forgive the
shutting down their contaminated plant and cleaning it and one after a year of the
incident. (Class Discussion) Both these videos reinforced the fact that they now
have higher standards of cleanliness and promise their customers to trust in them
The first ethical model that used to analyze the case is Contractarianism. The
reason for choosing contractarianism for analyzing this case is to exemplify how
Maple Foods kept both Explicit and Implicit promises towards its customers. The
main factor that supports the argument is the fact that the company did have a
chance to deny charges and try to mitigate the problem with other unethical means
such dragging the supplier of the slicer equipment to court and hence taking a
lower economic blow. But as a food company they directly reached out to their
situation. The consequence of his behavior was that it proved positive to one all.
Even though it may not have been positive in the short term because of the
financial losses, but it definitely proved to be positive in the long run. The case
proves that when a company or even an individual is faced with an ethical dilemma
it always helps to think about the long term consequences rather than the short
term gratification.
Looking at the case from the lens of Deontological Reasoning and the
us ponder over how different the cut-throat environment of the corporate world
would be if everyone could follow what CEO Michael McCain did. Technically,
everyone company or individual can choose to follow the path of apologizing and
promising their customers to set their mistakes right, but we hardly see examples
and cleansing agent for contact lenses surfaced. The product was causing sever eye
infection among contact lens users. The company was criticized for not taking an
action even after multiple warning and FDA notifications. The company knew about
its problems almost an year ago, but failed to warn customers about the side
effects. Bausch & Lomb had to forcefully recall all of the solution worldwide and is currently facing
multiple law suits and lost all of its most of its market share.
(https://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/eye_contacts_infection/renu-dangers-00428.html)
This example is a stark contrast to Maple Leaf Foods, proving that timely and ethical action in a crisis
There is another side to the story, even though the public gained the trust of the
company, the federal inspection records showed that Maple Leaf had not recorded
any previous cleaning of the contaminated meat slicer.
(http://www.swlawyers.ca/docs/Maple-Leaf-Case-Study_-_Colin-Stevenson.pdf)
This incident in itself displayed that the culture in the company was focused on
WHAT THEY DID AFTEE THE CONTAMINATIN LINE, AND WHAT I THINK VID1, VID 2,
VID 3
The most important ethical question is whether the negligence of the company to
let contaminated products be sold to the public is acceptable.
In the end it goes to prove that when people or companies take ownership of their
mistakes and make a genuine apology, people and consumers can relate and hence
find it easier to trust the company. After all dont we all make mistakes and hope to
get a second chance to do things the right way?