The Case of Nutritional Foods

Case Memos #1

In this assignment, students will read and analyze a case study. In response to the case study, students will write an analysis in business memo format, addressed to the Board of Directors for the company. The memo is written by the student acting as a hired consultant for the company.

The case study to be analyzed, The Case of Nutritional Foods, is attached.

By completing this assignment, students will meet the outcome(s):

• identify ethical issues that arise in domestic and global business environments using an understanding of ethical concepts and of legal and business principles;
• develop and evaluate alternatives to, and recommend solutions for, ethical dilemmas, taking into account ethical and legal requirements and the essential mission of the business enterprise
• effectively communicate to internal and external business stakeholders the complexities of ethical issues, suggesting and analyzing various solutions in order to ensure appropriate business practices and accountability

Requirements of Case Memo #1:

• Draft memo using the prescribe format (subheadings/sections) prescribed below;
• All sections must be comprehensive, in-depth and fully justified;
• Resources from previously assigned course materials or from your own research may be used to justify and support rationale;
• All in-text citations and resources must be in APA style;
• Submit the completed case in the Assignment Folder.
• make sure your discussion is founded on principles in the articel A Framework for Thinking Ethically [http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/framework.html] and also use the Student Toolbox found in Table of Contents.

Memorandum Format:

TO:

FROM:

RE:

DATE:

INTRODUCTION: Brief 1-paragraph intro to subject of memo.

FACTS SUMMARY: Summarize and explain the facts that are directly significant and relevant to the ethical dilemma in this case.

ETHICAL DILEMMA: Discuss the either/or ethical dilemma facing the company.

ETHICAL ISSUE: Discuss the most significant ethical issue (there is more than one, but choose one) related to, and arising from, the ethical dilemma and then, explain the ethical issue and why it is an ethical/moral issue, etc.

ALTERNATIVES: List, explain and justify two (2) possible alternatives/solutions to address and resolve the ethical dilemma and ethical issue discussed above. Each alternative should be comprehensive so that it addresses the related ethical issue.

Alternatives should be feasible, logical, directly related to resolving the ethical dilemma and addressing the ethical issues in the case.

Alternatives are expressed in the form of propositions or prescriptive statements suggesting action and are framed by asking the normative question, what could or should the company do? Consider consequences. Identify relevant stakeholders and the effects on them, pros and cons, etc. of each alternative. Apply ethical theories in context of your evaluations, but do not overdo this aspect. For example, teleological or consequentialist theorists would examine who the stakeholders are, both internal and external to the company, and the positive and negative consequences for each stakeholder group, etc.

RECOMMENDATION: Recommend one and only one (1) alternative from the two (2) alternatives suggested above. Justify and explain your choice discussing:

• why you chose this alternative
• how, specifically, the recommendation will address the ethical dilemma and ethical issues
• how the recommendation will likely impact relevant stakeholders
• pros and cons of recommendation
• feasibility of recommendation
• how the recommendation will be implemented
• Apply ethical theories, resources from previously assigned course materials, or resources from your own research to justify and support your recommendation.

FUTURE IMPLICATIONS for RECOMMENDATION: Discuss potential implications arising from recommendation for:

• the company
• other businesses within the industry
• other industries

CONCLUSION: Summarize the case and its ethical issues, implications, etc.

Case Memo 1 Case

The Case of Nutritional Foods
First Warnings

Fred James, chief executive of Nutritional Foods Inc., a $50 million manufacturer of healthful foods, listened with concern as John Healy, his vice president for production, described reports that had come in during the past hour.

The reports came from two county health departments, one in Seattle and the other in Southern California. In each case, the health department official reported a possible link between acute food poisoning of a child and an unpasteurized apple product produced by Nutritional Foods and distributed throughout the Western United States. The health departments had not yet ruled out all other possible causes. Additional information was not yet available, and Healy did not have batch numbers for the products in question.

Nutritional Foods was rapidly becoming the best-known brand of natural or non-pasteurized foods in the Western United States. It made its products in two facilities, one in California’s Central Valley and the other in a coastal city of Central California. Fresh fruit and vegetable products were shipped from growing regions throughout the West to these two facilities for processing and canning or bottling. The handling of non-pasteurized products was critical as contamination could occur in picking, transporting, or processing the fresh product.

Distribution was also critical to the freshness and safety of the company’s products. Daily distribution from the company’s processing facilities in company-owned refrigerated trucks ensured freshness.

Unpasteurized products had been popular in the health-food market for many years, but Nutritional Foods was the most successful of several companies seeking to appeal to the mainstream market as well as to the niche consumer. The company’s success had led to its rapid growth and the construction of its new processing facility in the Central Valley.

“OK, John,” said James, “what’s our response? Do two ‘maybes’ mean we should do something immediately? We have had an occasional report, perhaps one every couple of months, during the past two years. None of those turned out to be traceable to our product. Do two reports represent anything other than a statistical quirk? Should we be doing anything but waiting for the final reports from the health departments in a couple of days?”

Concern Deepens

Healy dispatched company managers to the two counties where initial reports indicated there might be acute food poisonings related to one of the company’s unpasteurized products. He was startled a short time later to receive a third and fourth report similar to the first two.

Although also not conclusive, the new reports made Healy wonder if something was terribly wrong. Healy immediately dispatched company managers to the two new counties, urging all four to get the batch numbers of the products in question. He also asked for an immediate meeting with James.

“Now what should we do?” asked Healy. “Should we warn the retailers, asking them to stop selling the product? Should we also warn the public? Such a move could devastate the company’s reputation and its stock price at a critical moment. Don’t we have an obligation to think long and hard before we take that step? How much certainty must we have and how serious does a problem have to be for us to proceed?”

Time to Act?

Healy was deeply troubled when he heard from his managers that health officials in the four counties they visited were virtually certain Nutritional Foods’ product was indeed involved in the food poisonings. All the batch numbers, however, were not available. The two cases where company managers could get batch numbers were from a single day’s production.

Healy was further troubled that three additional reports of possible food poisonings had come in by the end of the workday, though two were relayed by newspaper reporters. Each was checking claims by consumers that one of Nutritional Foods’ products had made them sick. One of the reports involved a different company’s products.

Healy also heard late in the afternoon from one of his children who had read in an Internet nutritional chat room that Nutritional Foods had a poisoning problem. Had the time come, Healy wondered, for more dramatic action? If so, what action should he take?

Crisis

At 7 p.m., Nutritional Foods announced publicly and through its retail network that it was pulling all batches of the unpasteurized product associated with all but one of the alleged poisoning incidents. Once the news hit the wire services, 50 more calls cascaded into company headquarters late that night and early the next morning. Most were from consumers alleging they, too, had been poisoned by the company’s products. Five more were reports from health professionals who stated they were treating possible poisonings.

At 9 a.m. the next morning, James convened a meeting of his Crisis Action Committee, an ad hoc group of managers that had been formed a few months earlier for just such a crisis. “Let me put several questions before the group,” said James. “Are we doing enough by conducting a recall for the specific product in question, publicly asking consumers to return all unused products to their local retailer, and asking retailers to stop selling and return all of their supply to us? The press has done a pretty good job getting the word out. It’s on the front page of perhaps 80 percent of the daily newspapers in our distribution area this morning.

“Should we do more to notify customers? Should we consider pulling all our products? The calls this morning allege adverse reactions from many different products.

“And what should be our strategy toward those who have been made sick by our product? If we show concern, isn’t there a risk we will look like we are admitting liability? Finally, what should we do about the sickest of those affected? Two children are reported this morning to be in critical condition.”

By Kirk O. Hanson, Markkula Center for Applied Ethics

Case Memo #1 Grading Rubric (15%)

	Outstanding	Superior	Good	Substandard	Failure
	5.25	4.46	3.94	3.41	2.89
Critical thinking/reasoning	demonstrates a high degree of critical thinking, is consistent in accurately interpreting questions & material; provides solid assumptions, reasoning & claims; thorough analysis & evaluation with sound conclusions	shows good critical thinking; accurately interprets most questions & material; usually identifies relevant arguments/reasoning/claims; offers good analysis & evaluation with fairly sound conclusions	shows occasional critical thinking; questions & material is at times accurately interpreted; arguments/reasoning/claims are occasionally explained; offers fair analysis & evaluation with a conclusion	shows little critical thinking, misinterprets questions or material; ignores or superficially evaluates; justifies little and seldom explains reasoning; draws unwarranted conclusions	lacks critical thinking consistently offers biased interpretations; ignores or superficially evaluates; argues using poor reasoning, and/or unwarranted claims
	5.25	4.46	3.94	3.41	2.89
Application of concepts/development	arguments or positions are well-supported with evidence from the readings/experience; ideas go beyond the course material and recognize implication and extensions of the material and concepts	arguments or positions are mostly supported by evidence from the readings and course content; ideas presented demonstrate student’s understanding of the material and concepts	arguments are more often based on opinion or unclear views than on position grounded in the readings of material or external sources of material	arguments are frequently illogical and unsubstantiated; student may resort to ad hominem attacks on the author instead of making meaningful application of the material	a meaningful attempt to explain or support ideas does not exist
	2.25	1.91	1.69	1.46	1.24
Attention to instructions	demonstrated full understanding of requirements responded to each aspect of assignment	demonstrated understanding of requirements; missed one minor aspect of assignment	demonstrated some understanding of requirements; missed a key element or two minor aspects of assignment	failed to show a firm understanding of requirements; missed two key elements or several minor aspects of assignment	did not demonstrate understanding of assignment requirements
	1.50	1.28	1.13	.98	.83
Clarity, including grammar	writing is clear and easy to follow; grammar and spelling are all correct; formatting gives a professional look and adds to readability	most ideas are presented clearly; occasional spelling and/or grammar issues	wordy; some points require rereading to understand fully; more than an occasional spelling and/or grammar	unclear and difficult to understand; frequent spelling and grammar issues	largely incomprehensible writing/poorly written in terms of mechanics and structure
	.75	.64	0.56	.49	.41
Adherence to APA style (6th ed.)	no APA style errors	attempts in-text citation and reference list but 1 or 2 APA style errors are present	attempts in-text citation and reference listing; APA style errors are present: inconsistencies in citation usage can be found throughout the document