Introduction
According to the case, Paul Kruse faced a situation in which he had to make ethical decisions that would not adversely affect the organization’s reputation. Irrespective of how Paul Kruse handled the case, his decision and course of action did not change the fact that sanitary measures were not effectively undertaken to lead to the development of contamination in Blue Bell’s manufacturing facilities. Based on the case, there was no quick fix for the condition until the sanitary measures were well executed, and the manufacturing facilities were treated to prevent the product’s continued contamination. In addition, it was essential to repair the condensation chamber from the filler pipe, which was the leading cause of the contamination.
Another fact is that precautionary measures were not taken in Blue Bell, and the process led to the development of contamination. Among the precautionary measure included the repair of the condensation and the leaking roof, which were not taken into consideration leading to continued contamination of the ice cream produced by the company. In addition, the Listeria testing program was necessary as it would have made the management make reasonable decisions failure to which the company was doomed to cause adverse health issues. The company was doomed to experience consumer health issues if it did not maintain health and safety measures, as CDC and the Listeria testing program had already confirmed the contamination in the manufacturing plant facilities.
The last fact is that the company had to incur costs and expenses to correct the situation irrespective of whether or not the company decided to deal with the contamination. This aspect is based on the fact that the contamination was inevitable and the only way to reduce the costs and expenses was to make the necessary repairs as early as possible to prevent the development of more damage.
Evaluation and Alternative Approaches
Ethical issue 1: What Decisions Would You Have Made If You Had Been in Kruse’s Position?
Statement of facts
One of the ethical issues experienced in the case is addressed in the first question of the decision point, about my decision if I were in Paul Kruse’s position. The central fact linked to the case is that the company’s manufacturing facilities were contaminated, and the only thing that would be used to solve the condition was to take strict sanitary measures and repair the condensation chamber, which was the leading cause of contamination. Kruse had complete information about what was going on in the manufacturing company before making the decision, which led to the development of adverse impacts it had on the customers. In addition, Kruse was also aware of the solution to the problem but chose to ignore the situation and moved on with selling the contaminated ice cream to the consumers.
Evaluation
The main theories applicable in the case are utilitarianism and deontology ethics theories. According to the utilitarianism theory, the decision-maker is concerned with the consequences of the decision (Quiambao, 2022). In this case, Kruse focused on the decision’s impact on the shareholders and the consumers if the company’s production stopped due to contamination. Based on the decision made, Kruse concentrated on the company’s continuity as he perceived that the business’s continuity would benefit all concerned. Deontology ethics is another theory that holds that some acts are morally obligatory irrespective of their consequences for human welfare (Ware, 2018). According to the theory, the decision-maker must undertake where virtue is considered the reward for the decision and let justice be done (Terziev, Koleci, & Solovev, 2020). Based on the case, it was Kruse’s duty to protect the company’s interests, which he executed as a virtue of his actions irrespective of the outcome of the decision.
Action
According to the facts provided, the best theory that can solve the problem is utilitarianism as the examination of costs and benefits is critical. If I were in Paul Kruse’s position, I would take time to examine the source of the contamination to identify the various ways I would deal with it, even though it would mean experiencing some losses when correcting the situation. In my opinion, an evaluation of the impacts that the various courses of action would develop was critical to the case and it would lead to the development of informed decisions. Therefore, I would have considered the outcome that the decision would have for both the business and citizens who are critical stakeholders to the business’s success before making any decision.
Ethical Issue 2: Would You Have Supported or Allowed the Listeria Testing Program to Continue?
Statement of facts
Kruse was confronted with the decision to either support or end the Listeria testing program. The central fact in the case is that the Listeria testing program had tested positive for the presence of contamination in the condensing chamber. This test proved that the decision to sell the contaminated ice cream to the customers was unethical and against human rights. On the contrary, the decision to stop the Listeria testing program would not provide evidence of contamination. This would enable the company to avoid losses if the organization’s operations were halted for health issues.
Evaluation
The main ethical theories applicable in such a condition is the utilitarianism and the virtue ethics theory Utilitarianism theory would provide that an individual would examine the costs and benefits of an action and make a decision that would be most beneficial (Häyry, 2020). Evaluating the decision that would benefit all the stakeholders caused the dilemma in the suspension decision for the Listeria testing program in Blue Bells. On the other hand, the virtue ethics theory is based on the perspective of the moral integrity of the person involved in the decision-making process (Roh, 2018). In this case, Kruse was torn between protecting the company’s shareholders’ interests and the customers’ rights. The decision to support or suspend the Listeria testing program directly impacted both the company’s shareholders and the health of the customers, who are also important stakeholders of the company.
Action
The best option that addresses the issue is the virtue ethics theory. The question of health and safety is a matter of virtue and humanity therefore it should come first before the interest of the company. Therefore, the main action I would undertake in the situation would be to support the Listeria testing program, as it would enable the organization to control the level of contamination in the company’s facility. Upholding the test program would have saved the management a lot of money as they would only spent on repairing the roof and condensation chamber of the facility, which were involved in the contamination process. The contrary decision made Kruse be charged with violation of human rights and also for the company to undertake the maintenance that he avoided when suspending the testing program.
Conclusion
The Blue Bell case was challenging as the president faced difficult choices since the company was top-selling in the ice cream industry. Irrespective of his decision, the outcomes were bound to have significant consequences on the organization. The case provides an ethical dilemma for the president and CEO of Blue Bell as he was bound to make tough decisions to save the company and maintain its reputation. His main worry in the case was to make losses and experience production hitches when correcting the condition, which would be costly. According to the case study, Paul Kruse chose to save the company from losses at the expense of the health of its loyal customers even though Kruse avoided responsibility in the first place and ignored the entire situation. It later caught up with him as he was later charged for the case. Based on the choices that Kruse made to save the company, he acted as an agent of the company. He focused on the interests of the shareholders and the company’s reputation at the expense of the consumers’ health.
Even though it was his duty to save the company, his decision was against the customers’ human rights as it ended up killing three and causing health issues for many others. In addition, Kruse was focused on saving the company from excess spending in terms of repairing the various sections of production linked to the contamination to protect the interests of the shareholders. Instead, he ended up hurting the customers who made the company gain its profitable status. Kruse was also charged for the decision, and the company’s reputation was tainted. Such consequences would have been avoided if Kruse had made ethical decisions after assessing the impact that the decision would have on all the interested parties and made the modification before the matter worsened. After an evaluation of the case, the ethical issues involved, and the outcomes experienced after the decision, I believe that utilitarianism is the best theory of ethics that individuals, including myself, should focus on when making decisions. I consider this theory the most effective since it enables the manager to evaluate the possible outcomes of a decision even before making it.
References
Häyry, M. (2021). Just better utilitarianism. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 30(2), 343-367.
Quiambao, J. (2022). Thinking ethically: The utilitarianism approach in moral decision making. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation, 602-604.
Roh, Y. (2018). The features of teleological approaches to virtue and their implications in normative ethics – Focusing on Aristotle’s and Kant’s concepts of virtue. Journal of Pan-Korean Philosophical Society, 90, 95-124. Web.
Terziev, V., Koleci, R., & Solovev, D. (2020). Role of ethics in decision making in public and private organizations. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Ware, O. (2018). Fichte’s normative ethics: Deontological or teleological? Mind, 127(506), 631-631.