Case 2 As A Brand Manager At A Large Food Manufacturer

Case 2 As A Brand Manager At a Large Food Manufacturer Youre Positi

As a brand manager at a large food manufacturer tasked with launching a new low-fat, low-calorie snack product into a competitive market, I am faced with multiple strategic and ethical challenges. The primary concern revolves around the conflicting evidence regarding potential adverse health effects associated with the product, specifically dizziness reported by Green Lab but disputed by other independent research sources. Navigating this situation requires a careful balance of corporate responsibility, consumer safety, stakeholder interests, and ethical considerations grounded in the due care theory.

The primary alternatives at my disposal include proceeding with the product launch without addressing the concerns raised by Green Lab, delaying the launch pending further investigation, or developing transparent communication strategies that acknowledge the conflicting findings while prioritizing consumer safety. Proceeding without action could jeopardize consumer trust and expose the company to legal liabilities if adverse effects are confirmed later. Conversely, delaying the launch might offer an opportunity for additional research but also risks losing market share to competitors and damaging company reputation. A middle path involves conducting comprehensive, independent safety evaluations, possibly including additional clinical testing, and transparently communicating findings to consumers, regulatory agencies, and stakeholders.

My obligation to consumers extends beyond mere compliance with regulations; it involves prioritizing consumer health and safety, exercising due diligence, and ensuring that the product does not harm users. Transparency is vital, which involves honest disclosure of potential risks and uncertainties, along with evidence supporting safety. Ethically, the precautionary principle suggests that in cases of scientific uncertainty, the company should err on the side of caution rather than risking consumer health for competitive gain.

Other stakeholders include shareholders, employees, regulatory agencies, and the broader community. Shareholders seek profitability and a positive reputation; employees rely on the company's stability and ethical standards; regulatory agencies require compliance with safety standards; and the community depends on ethical corporate conduct. As a responsible corporate entity, we owe these stakeholders a commitment to safety, honesty, and integrity.

My obligations to my employer involve balancing business objectives with ethical conduct, ensuring that the company adheres to legal standards and maintains its reputation. To employees, I owe leadership and ethical decision-making that aligns with best practices and corporate values. To regulatory authorities, my obligation is compliance and transparency.

The application of the due care theory emphasizes the need for a cautious approach rooted in informed decision-making and a duty to prevent harm. Under this framework, a rigorous assessment of the product’s safety is essential before market introduction. If uncertainties remain, the company must either conduct further research or restrict product promotion until clarity is achieved, demonstrating responsibility and due diligence.

In conclusion, applying ethical principles and the due care theory guides me to prioritize consumer safety and transparency while exploring all reasonable avenues to mitigate potential harm. The decision should emphasize honesty, thorough investigation, and a commitment to doing no harm, even if it temporarily delays market entry. Upholding these standards will reinforce trust and uphold our company's reputation in the long term.

References

• Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. The New York Times Magazine.
• Arkema, K., et al. (2020). Corporate social responsibility in food industry: Ethical issues and consumer perceptions. Journal of Business Ethics, 162(2), 321-336.
• Hansson, S. O. (2002). The precautionary principle: Ethical considerations. Environmental Ethics, 24(2), 137-153.
• O'Neill, O. (2003). Some limits of informed consent. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29(4), 205–208.
• Vaughn, R. (2013). The Person in Ethics. Routledge.
• Sandel, M. (2009). Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Resnik, D. B. (2011). The Ethics of Science: An Introduction. Routledge.
• Jonas, H. (1984). The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethic for the Technological Age. University of Chicago Press.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.