Ethical Decision Making New Year's Eve Crisis

The ethical issues related here include the financial health of both Michael's Pasta Company (which now includes Southern Pasta) and of the restaurant chain affected by the tainted products, and the physical health of restaurant patrons. Other ethical issues such as simple honesty and business integrity are also involved in the case details, though they do not really affect the decision to be made.

Stakeholders include Michael himself as well as his company(ies) and all employees at under his employment; the restaurant's owners, managers, chefs, and customers; the FDA and other relevant governmental agencies; and eventually the former owners of Southern Pasta. From the previous Southern owner's point-of-view, the damage has been done and clearly a clean escape is being sought, so knowledge of the issues is likely to be disavowed. Michael and his company would like to minimize public knowledge regarding this as it would hurt them through no fault of their own, and the restaurant would certainly like to know about the tainted products it might be about to serve.

3.

The alternatives are rather simple. Michael can notify the restaurant of the tainted products (which even a simple reminder to cook the product properly would result in, realistically), which will likely result in a full FDA investigation should the restaurant decide to report it, or Michael can remain quite and see what happens -- if the restaurant cooks the product correctly in all instances, there is the possibility that no real damage will be caused.

Failing to provide notification would not necessarily avoid any of the consequences of the tainted products to Michael's Pasta, and could even exacerbate them if it was learned that the company knew of the taint -- if salmonella is discovered, which it very well could be, it will be traced back to the company. Consequences to other stakeholders would be far more dire, including potential fatalities amongst those who eat the product and substantial economic damage to the restaurant chain. Duty-based ethical theories would demand that notification occur as it is simply wrong to knowingly serve food to people that could make them ill or even kill them -- this is rather clear. Full disclosure would be deontologically required for all stakeholders, in fact, as lying (even through omission) is a basic wrong. Personal integrity and character for Michael and for his company would be substantially increased with proactive notification, and would be irreparably damaged if an outbreak occurred and the company failed to provide adequate notification.
5.

From the above analysis, it is clear that the decision should be made to notify the restaurant chain of the tainted products, and to work towards immediate supply solutions as well as long-term controls to prevent future incidents. Not only is this ethically unquestionable and in fact insisted upon according to most ethical perspectives, but it…