Introduction
The process of making ethical decisions in business often can be regarded as the problem of moral choice. In that sense, business ethics can be referred to as having moral standards as their basis. The issue of ethical decisions in business, however, is more complicated and requires considering many aspects. This part of the paper gives an evaluation of the case study of Jerry and the chain of family restaurants, in an attempt to provide a response and a recommendation based on ethical decision analysis.
Analysis
Jerry’s response to the customers poisoned in his restaurants, would be to offer the compensation. In the restaurant business, the issue of reputation has a major role in defining the profitability of business. In that sense, a case of poisoning regardless of the fault of the manufacturer, as long as the customers had their meals in Jerry’s restaurant, could ruin a business connected to the food sector. Along with the immediate pull of the shipments of sausage from his freezers, Jerry should respond to other complaints similarly, as long as their time line coincides with the poisoned sausages still being used. In judging the case as an issue of consequences, teleological theory is the most appropriate, i.e. “The ethical good of an action is to be judged by the effects of the action on others” (Constance Bagley, p.13) This could also be the reason why Jerry should jump in to pay the victims, as if measuring the consequences of both actions, paying the customers and ignoring them, the first will imply widespread of the story in the media which can result in ruining the reputations of the restaurant. In that case, the fact that case happened in one restaurant will result in the rest being affected similarly. Incorporating the dilemmas presented in Badaracco framework notes, the dilemma here is not “right versus right”(Badaracco, 2002, p. 5), rather than it is right action against no action.
Assessing the economic implications, it is necessary to say that reputation can be put as economically affecting as the profit and expenses for paying compensations. In that sense, this approach would be no different if assuming that it was taken in the corporation and the shareholders caring only for profit, where “shareholders care about the company’s reputation, because profit in the future may well be linked to reputation. Reputation is a valuable asset which takes time to build up and needs to be jealously guarded (Cadbury, 2002, p. 21).
Analyzing the steps that Jerry should take in order to cover this issue, Badaracco framework in the lecture “Defining moment” could assess the decisions more detailed. The look at the consequences approach imply that on the basis of “the plan of action that does the most good and the least harm” (5), paying the clients would result in the satisfaction of seven people, and the consequences of the event not being published will raise that indicator. The harm in that case will result to a certain financial loss to Jerry and his partner.
In the case of “rights that we must absolutely respect”(7), the group of individuals is the clientele of the restaurants whose right to have a healthy food should not be violated, thus pulling the shipment of sausages as mentioned earlier is a vital decision. It could be assumed that the rights of the owners to have a profit and not to suffer losses should not be violated too, but in comparing these groups on the long term, the decision of paying the customer is more beneficial.
The question of integrity will assume that even in case that the customers were poisoned somewhere else, paying the customers will show that their business stand on the ground of moral responsibility, rather than mere profit, in case they decide not to pay.
Finally, according the question of pragmatism, and what “will work in the world as it is” (10), the risk in taking the action first is certainly will be related to the case of paying the customers. In contrary, not “compensate anyone or pull any product until it has been proven that they are responsible”, is not a risk, rather than an action that can be called a “reckless” chance.
In examining the four questions in the framework, the right decision for Jerry is to pull the shipment and pay the customers, and the faster he makes this decision, the less harm full the consequences would be.
References
- Bagley, C, & D. Savage. (1998). Managers and the Legal Environment: Strategies for the 21st Century. South-Western College/West.
- Badaracco, J. “Defining Moment” Harvard Business School. (2002)
- Cadbury, A. (2002). Chapter 1 Business Dilemmas. In Case Histories in Business Ethics, Megane, C. & Robinson, S. J. (Eds.) (pp. 9-22). London: Routledge.