Facts
They discussed business incident is associated with a discrimination lawsuit that accused Tyson Foods of discriminating recruitment policy that the company pursues. As it is reported, the lawsuit was supported by almost six thousand people that claimed they failed to receive a job in this organization on a discriminating basis. The company did not admit its fault. In the meantime, in order to avoid additional expenses associated with the trial procedures, it agreed to pay the compensation to the involved parties. Additionally, it promised officially to reshape its recruitment strategy and provide the rejected applicants with the relevant positions as soon as possible (Addady par.3). The company would already be challenged by an ethics scandal last year. That time a suit was filed by the company’s employees complaining about receiving wages inadequate to the scope of the working hours. Tyson’s attempt to defend was unsuccessful –the company was cast a six million settlement by the decision of the Supreme Court (Higgins par. 5).
Ethical Issues Involved
From an ethical perspective, the discussed incident is associated with such concepts as “fair” and “unfair.” As such, the rejected applicants claim to have been treated unfairly when their applications were declined (Addady par.3). The problem resides in the fact that their interpretation of fair recruitment might differ from what the company management has. Therefore, in order to empower their complaint with the legal rationale, they should have provided some evidence of workplace discrimination on the ground of particular criteria such as sex, nationality, etc. The company, in its turn, is challenged to be an ethical dilemma whether to admit the discriminating character of its recruitment policy or to deny the fault. From this perspective, the company chose an unusual alternative to paying the compensation and to deny the fault at the same time.
Stakeholders
There are several groups of stakeholders involved in the described incident. First and foremost, it is the rejected applicant that strives to receive their moral and financial compensation. As a potential applicant, I might associate myself with this group of stakeholders. Second, it is Tyson Foods that need to settle the problem at minimal costs and restore its reputation most promptly. Additionally, it is Tyson Foods’ employees that depend largely on the company’s decision. As such, the losses that the company bears are likely to have an adverse effect on its financial performance so that employees’ wages will be naturally reduced. Finally, it is the company’s partners that need to consider further collaboration with Tyson Foods and the potential impact this partnership might have on their reputation.
Alternative Courses of Action
The company is free to choose other alternatives to settle the problem. First and foremost, since the company denies the discriminative character of its recruitment policy, it might resolve to set up the defense and prove its innocence in the court. Second, the company can admit its fault and pay the required compensation. In the frame of a “wild” scenario, the company can counter-claim the applicants’ lawsuit accusing these people of casting aspersions on the company’s image.
How the Alternatives Will Affect the Stakeholders
In case the company chooses the first alternative and decides to set up the defense, it will have to allocate significant financial resources to the trial process. The outcome of this decision cannot be accurately predicted. In the meantime, taking into account its previous unsuccessful practice, it can be assumed that there are substantial chances of Tyson Foods’ losing an action and the rejected applicants’ benefiting from it. However, if the company manages to prove the irrelevance of the applicants’ lawsuit, it will restore its image; from a financial standpoint, it will still bear significant losses. In case the company chooses the second alternative, it will both lose the money and its image will suffer since the discrimination character for the corporate recruitment policy will be admitted publicly. The applicants will receive compensation along with an opportunity to require for a job in the company. The outcomes of the third scenario are likely to be similar to that of the first alternative since the company’s chances to win the case are insignificant.
Guidance
In order to manage ethics-related incidents effectively, it is essential to examine the experience of other businesses and adopt the best practices of responding to corporate scandals. Thus, for instance, relying upon his large-scale case study, Grebe comes to the conclusion that the best way to restore a company’s reputation after a scandal is to admit the fault and ensure the society that the relevant measures are taken to improve the situation (108). It is the second alternative bases on this recommendation. All the other alternatives imply denying the company’s fault.
Decision and the Associated Outcomes
It is proposed that the company should choose the second alternative that implies admitting the fault and paying the compensation. First and foremost, the efficiency of such an approach is empirically evidenced (Grebe 108). Second, it will be beneficial for the company’s image the restoration of which will lead to positive outcomes from a long-term perspective.
Works Cited
Addady, Michal. Tyson Foods Settles a $1.6 Million Discrimination Lawsuit 2016. Web.
Grebe, Sasha Karl. “The importance of being genuinely sorry when organizations apologize: how the Australian Wheat Board (AWB Limited) was damaged even further by its response to a corporate scandal.” Journal of Public Affairs 13.1 (2013): 100-110. Print.
Higgins, Kevin. Two Legal Resolutions Add Up to $7.4 Million for Tyson 2016. Web.