Ethical dilemma of marketing "free range" chicken labeling

Business Ethics

Background of Scenario

The marketing Vice President of one's organization (engaged in chicken processing), where one holds the post of Chief Executive, suggests that by putting the "free range" label on their chickens, they can raise the price they charge by 20%, thereby significantly enhancing the company's profit margin. However, one discovers that the law on putting the "free range" label on processed chicken is so lenient that one only needs to let the chickens out into the open for about five minutes per day (or more precisely, "open the henhouse door for five minutes")However, in this short duration, it is highly unlikely that all chickens will step out; in fact, it has been observed that only a few will do so. Furthermore, this term (i.e., "free range") can be employed irrespective of the space one allows per chicken, time period spent outside, and the number of hens.

The Ethical Dilemma

Here, the ethical quandary boils down to upholding company integrity and that of one's product, in terms of how one exploits the word "free range." Clearly, one can very easily make one's company earn better revenues (Writer Thoughts). But this may be at the cost of one's products. As stated earlier, the label of "free range" can be employed irrespective of the space one allows per chicken, time period spent outside, and the number of hens, thus leaving ample opportunity for different ways of interpretation. It may end up leading one's organization into trouble; hence, the dilemma.

Alternatives

There is a strong link between organizational profits and marketing. A sound marketing plan can result in extensive brand growth, growth of customer base, and eventually, profits. For profit maximization, however, organizations are frequently seen straddling the boundary of ethically-correct marketing and unethical marketing. Some examples of debatable ethics in companies' marketing activities include broadcasting sexual advertisements for attracting customers to one's service or product offering, making use of violence for drawing consumers' attention to one's service or product, and targeting kids in advertisements (Miksen). In the scenario in question, the debatable issue is the marketing department's plan to attach the "free range" label to the company's processed chickens, when the term's definition appears not to be very ethical or accurate. One alternative would be: completely giving up this idea of tagging the "free range" label to one's offering, to ultimately maintain organizational integrity and escape ethical conflict.

Production activities linked to nearly all products have some or other environmental impact. Organizations bent on profit maximization may resort to ethically-incorrect environmental practices (like forest destruction, increasing pollution, and contamination of water supplies). Typically, it is relatively cheaper to harm our environment than to impact it positively. For instance, a small, fledgling enterprise might not have extra funds at hand and may find it far cheaper to continue its operations via a highly-polluting factory than to construct one that is safer or remodel the existing plant (Miksen). Such firms (particularly those situated in developed nations like the U.S.) are usually required to follow certain environmental regulations. However, these regulations normally only prevent excessive damage to the environment, while turning a blind eye to mild-to-moderate environmental damage, as evidenced by the environment chickens, which are made to live in houses, even when labeled as "free range." The available space and number of hens one possesses aren't considered at all, implying that the label is very loosely interpreted. For remedying this, the company can expand its chicken enclosures and actually provide them with a healthy environment, thus justifying its use of the label "free range." This would, of course, require allocation of a certain amount of funds, but it would ultimately glean long-term profits for the company, and boost its integrity. Larger enclosures mean increased freedom of movement to the chickens, and subsequently, healthier chickens, hence bringing long-term benefits to one's organization.

The third alternative would be altering product quality. Production costs normally constitute the greatest expenses for a company. Thus, the company can reduce its offering's quality, while maintaining its selling price at the present price, thereby maximizing profits (Miksen). However, through such an act, the company crosses over to the unethical side. Quality reduction for profit maximization threatens the brand name; it may result in loss of consumer trust as well as respect. Since small enterprises depend on the trust and respect of their customers, losing both may have major repercussions for the organization, slowing its growth and reducing revenue. My personal opinion is that putting the "free range" label on our chickens can lead to potential reduction in product quality, if we fail to provide suitable living conditions to them. Thus, attempting to increase company profits by following such a strategy is, indeed, unethical.