Ethical Decision Making New Year\'s Eve Crisis

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.

4.

If notification is provided, there will definitely be financial consequences for Michael's Pasta and for the restaurant, however these damages can be easily quantified and controlled. 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 will provide a greater assurance against practical risks and damages to Michael's business, as well.

Foreign Assignment

Sara

1.

The ethical issues involved include the success of the bank and the sense of personal validation, worth, and respect that Sara feels.

2.

Stakeholders include the bank and its owners and employees, the clients Sara deals with, Mr. Vitam, Mr. Fields, and of course Sara herself. From the perspective of the bank and its immediate stakeholders/staff, "playing the game" increases profitability and is thus good. The clients receive cultural affirmation form this "game" as well, though it is demonstrably harmful to Sara and counter to modern theories if gender equality.

3.

Sara can leave the company, the company could fire Sara, Sara could endure the situation, or Sara could file a complaint with appropriate agencies.

4.

Consequences to the bank will be minimal regardless of the decision made; a worst-case scenario is Sara leaving the bank and filing a complaint, and it is unlikely that this will cause substantial loss or a substantial change in the way the bank does business. The bank should feel duty bound to promote the healthy respect of all individuals associated with the bank, however, and would also derive greater levels of integrity from this decision. Sara is likely to be harmed by any decision unless the bank changes policy, how ever she will be upholding her duty to herself and her integrity by refusing to put up with the situation and taking some action.

5.

Sara should remain with the bank, continue talking to supervisors and perhaps standing up for herself in front of clients, and file a complaint with relevant authorities.

Mr. Vitam

1.

The ethical issues are Sara's feelings and the practical affects of behavior and gender perspectives on the bank's ability to conduct business and generate profit, stability, and income for a variety of stakeholders.