NOEP— Broaden your mind & improve essential IELTS skis 16. {© ETHICAL DILEMMA: THE BURGER Gi MURDERS ‘A few years ago, you founded a company that meatless burgers. Your product is now sold in stores worldwide. But you've recently received awful news: three people in one city died after eating your burgers. The police concluded that a criminal targeted your brand, injecting poison into your product in at least two grocery stores. The culprit used an ultrafine instrument that left no trace on the packaging, making it impossible to which products were compromised. Your burgers were immediately removed from the two stores where the victims bought them, The deaths are news, the killer is still at large, and sales have plummeted. 00:55 You must quickly develop a strategy to deal with the crisis. Your team comes up with three options: 1. Do nothing. 2. Pullthe products from grocery stores citywide and destroy them r3, Pull and destroy the product worldwide. Which do you choose? Your company lawyer explains that a is not required by law because the criminal is fully responsible. She recommends the first option— doing nothing— because recalling the product could look like an of fault. € Designed and collected by Free Enejish Children’s Book Club 7TS skills 01:32 But is that the most ethical strategy? To gauge the ethicality of each you could perform a “stakeholder analysis.” This would allow you to weigh the interests of some key stakeholders— investors, employees, and customers— against one another. 0151 With the first option your advisors. that the crisis will eventually blow over. Sales will then improve but probably stay below prior levels because of damage to the brand. As a result, you'll have ta lay aff same and investors will suffer minor losses. But more customers could die if the killer poisoned. elsewhere. 02:14 ‘The second is expensive in the short-term and will require greater employee layoffs and additional financial loss to - But this option is safer for customers in the city and could create enough trust that sales will eventually rebound. 02:33 The third option is the most expensive in the and will require significant employee layofis and investor losses. Though you have no evidence that these crimes are an. threat, this option provides the greatest customer protection. 02:50 Given the conflict between the interests of your customers versus those of your investors and employees, which strategy is the most ? To make this decision, you could consider these tests: 03:03 First is the Utilitarian Test: Utilitarianism is a concerned with maximizing the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. What would be the impact of each option on these terms? Second is the Family Test: How would you feel explaining your decision to your family? Third is the Newspaper Test: how would you feel reading about it on the front page of the local newspaper? 03:30 And finally, you could use the Mentor Test: If someone you admire were making this decision, what would they do? Johnson Samp; Johnson CEO James Burke faced a challenge in 1982 after a criminal added the poison cyanide to bottles of Tylenol in Chicago. Seven people died and sales dropped. industry analysts said the company was done for. In response, Burke decided to pull Tylenol from all shelves, , citing customer safety as the company's highest priority. Johnson & Johnson recalled and destroyed an estimated 32 million bottles of ‘Tylenol valued at 250 million in today’s dollars. 1.5 million of the recalled bottles were tested and coftected ‘ReserNOEP—~ Broaden your mind & improve essential IELTS. and 3 of them—all from the Chicago area— were found to contain cyanide. Burke's decision helped the. regain the trust of its customers, and product sales rebounded within year. Prompted by the Tylenol murders, Johnson & Johnson became a in developing tamper-resistant packaging and the government instituted stricter regulations. The killer, meanwhile, was never caught. 04:48 Burke's decision prevented further from the initial poisoning, but the federal government investigated hundreds of copycal tampering incidents involving other products in the following weeks. Could these have been with a different response? Was Burke acting in the interest of the public or of his company? Was this good ethics or good marketing? As with all ethical _ this has no clear right or wrong answer. 05:17 And for your meatless burger empire, the choice remains yours. ¢ ¢ Let's Begin You founded 2 company that manufactures meatless burgers that are sold in stores worldwide. But you've recently received awful news: three people in one city died after eating your burgers. A criminal has injected poison into your product! The deaths are headline news and sales have plummeted. How do you deal with the crisis? George Siedel and Christine Ladwig explore the different strategies of this ethical dilemma. & Think L Why was It so difficult to determine which of the meatless burger products were tampered with? ‘A. Because the criminal bribed the security guard, B. Because all of the packages had visible air holes. C. Because the tampering occurred at the manufacturer before the burgers were sent tostores. D. Because the tampering was not evident on the packaging/product: 2. Which of the following staternents about what happened following the poisonings is false? A. Deaths related to the poisoned burgers were headline news. B. The criminal killer was arrested a few years later when he tampered with bottles of Tylenol C. Customers stopped buying your meatless burger brand. D. Investigators identified two stores where burgers were poisoned. Designed and collected by Free Enalish Children’s Book Ciub a3. All of the following are potential options considered in response to the burger poisoning EXCEPT A. Donothing because the criminal, not your company, poisoned the burgers. B. Pull your meatless burger products only from the lwo stores where the polsonings are known to have occurred, C. Pull your meatless burger products from all stores in the city where the two stores with poisoned burgers were located. D. Pull your meatless burger products from every store wherever located. 4. Which contemplated strategy would represent the greatest potential disadvantage for the stakeholder? ‘A. A“do nothing’ option for investors, B. A “do nothing” option for employees. C. A“pull products fram shelves at all the stores” option for investors. D. A “pull products from all stores in the city where you know poisonings occurred” option fur employees. 5. Which of the following ethical tests seeks to determine the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people? A. Family Test B. Newspaper Test C. Utilitarian Test D. Mentor Test 6. Think about the three options available to your meatless burger company: (1) do nothing; (2) pull products from all stores in the city where you know poisonings occurred; (3) pull products from shelves at all the stores. Which option would you choose and why? 7. What do you think would have happened if James Burke and Johnson & Johnson had decided to take the “do nothing” option in the Tylenol poisoning crisis? Or take the “city- wide” only option (Chicago, in this case) 8. Imagine that you arc an automobile manufacturer that is required to add seatbelt restraints to your vehicles. The seatbelts that you are currently using meet all the legal requirements tor safety, but there is a new restraint system available that is 25% safer for passengers. The new seatbelts, however, will add significant cost to the vehicles, resulting i lower profits and reduced ability to compete in the marketplace. Do you keep installing the legally compliant seatbelts, or will you switch to the new restraint system? [© ciscusions Isit necessary lo consider both law and ethics when making a business decision? Isn‘t being legally compliant enough?Sten into L152 NOEP— sroaden your mind & improve esseriul IELTS shill evo notes Briefly summarize what you have learned. $& - designed and collected by Free Enaish Chilaren’s Book lub a