Pros And Cons Of Whistleblowing

“Whistle blowing is a disclosure by an employee or professional of confidential information which relates to some danger, fraud or other illegal or unethical conduct connected with the work place, be it of the employer or his fellow employees.” Based on the facts read, Delectables Corp. is participating in serious unethical behavior that in the long term can hurt both the company and its customers. Before deciding how best to proceed questions such as these come to mind: “Am I blowing the whistle for the right reasons? Am I ready to be known as a whistleblower? Am I prepared to live with the consequences?” I would think through my decision by weighing the pros and cons of whistle blowing. There are numerous risks associated with this decision.

From what I read Delectables Corp. doesn’t have an open door policy, it seems like whistle blowing isn’t encouraged at this company. First, going through with this decision could bring termination. Considering the last manager was fired for blowing the whistle, it seems very likely to happen again to the next whistle blower. Secondly, whistle blowing could bring the whole company down, causing everyone to lose their jobs. Third, the whistle-blower can get stigmatized as “disloyal”. Fourth, sometimes colleagues may exact some form of revenge towards the whistle blower. On the other hand there’s also numerous benefits to whistle blowing. First, due to the extreme unethical conduct of Delectables Corp., one would be considered a hero for whistle blowing. Second, one could possibly earn a reward or even a promotion. Whistle blowing in this situation would be a courageous act, which will end up saving a lot of people. To further justify my decision on blowing the whistle, I took in to account the stakeholders theory. Delectables Corp. is being highly irresponsible to all of its stakeholders. They owe it to their stakeholders to communicate with them and disclose about the possible salmonella contamination going on at the plant. They seem to care more about profits rather than their employees and consumers. Selling contaminated products is illegal and completely unethical. I would not be able to live with myself knowing somebody could possibly die, so no, I would not sign the quality control form. I do not want to be held responsible for a salmonella outbreak nor would I want to be held responsible for the death of a consumer.
A2. If upper management asks me specific advice on how to improve the food safety and quality control situation at Delectables, I would advise them to openly communicate with their employees. There’s clearly lack of communication at Delectables Corp. and the root of the problem starts with upper management and goes down the ranks. The Quality Control Director has established a process of labeling boxes with certain color stickers to signify whether there is contamination or not. A Red sticker signifies unacceptable contamination while a yellow sticker signifies mild contamination. However, most workers seem indifferent and annoyed by quality control system. Take for example the production line foreman who peel the stickers off and clear the boxes for market. It is obvious that they don’t understand the severity of their actions. Upper management needs to set clear rules for the employees and serious consequences for breaking those rules. The Quality Control Director cannot be effective in the current company culture. Employees do not have respect for the Quality Control Director. Yes, he established this great process of identifying contamination but he hasn’t followed up with the employees to ensure they’re following the system. The employees don’t care about the company and upper management is only concerned about profits. This is probably the biggest challenge I would face while trying to improve quality control. In order to improve quality control, communication would also have to improve. I owe fiduciary duty to Delectables but Delectables owes a fiduciary duty to act on the best interest of its consumers and until Delectables fulfills that duty, I will not be able to fully do my job.
PART B:
B1.

The government should play a huge role in assuring food safety in the food industry. Government agencies are responsible for setting food safety standards, conducting inspections, ensuring that standards are met, and maintaining a strong enforcement program to deal with those who do not comply with standards. State and federal inspectors do not require the peanut industry to inform the government of salmonella contamination in its plants. The government simply doesn’t know what’s going on in these plants. The state of Georgia on the other hand is extremely underfunded and only has 60 inspectors to monitor 16,000 food businesses. The state of Georgia needs to tighten its food safety net. Georgia should prevent Delectables from selling contaminated products, otherwise a salmonella breakout will lead the state to an even bigger revenue deficit. The Government should fund Georgia so they can hire more inspectors to better handle these problems. It is also important for the government to stress the importance of social responsibility to companies like Delectables. As we saw in the Malden Mills case from class, Aaron Feurerstein, CEO of Malden Mills, was a patriot for social responsibility. He felt that it was his duty to take care of his employees to rebuild Malden Mills for the City of Lawrence. Delectables needs to make a commitment to work with employees and their families as well as the local community and society as a whole. Self-regulation is voluntary and is typically framed as a socially responsible industry practice that has consumer welfare as its central feature. A well-grounded self-regulatory system has distinct benefits: it conserves government resources and is less adversarial, more flexible, and timelier than government regulation. Risk occurs when promises are not fulfilled because of weak standards or ineffective enforcement, allowing companies to continue to serve their own interests at the expense of consumers. In the Delectables situation it is

clear that self-regulation cannot be trusted.
PART C:
C1. There are numerous legal and ethical standards raised by the supervisor’s proposal to ship Red-tagged cases of peanut butter to San Lopegattia. It is illegal to sell products that you know are contaminated and can be harmful to consumers. Culture varies in different countries, this can make business ethics more complicated .Many practices that are considered as ethical practices in some countries are declined or even illegal in other countries. It is difficult to assess international business ethics because there is no universal code of standards to adhere to. Nonetheless the supervisor’s proposal is completely unethical and illegal. She is knowingly putting the lives of others at risk. She is taking advantage of the fact San Lopegattia is a less developed foreign country where disease is already prevalent. She justifies her actions by using the utilitarian approach and saying that San Lopegattia is generally deficient in protein, and Delectables’ peanut butter is high in protein, thus helping to meet the country’s nutritional needs. However, any ethical person would help the people of San Lopegattia instead of adding on another disease to their list.
C2. My analysis would not differ from C1 if the proposal related instead to Yellow sticker products. Even though the yellow sticker products are only mildly contaminated, they’re still contaminated. The supervisor is obviously toying with human life. These products could ultimately cause death and Delectables Corp. doesn’t care whatsoever.
PART D:
D1. Based on the situation in part D I would advise Delectables Corp. not to sell their questionable peanut butter products in San Lopegttia due to the amount of bribery involved. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, was enacted for the purpose of making it unlawful for certain classes of persons and entities to make payments to foreign government officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business. While it is legal but unethical to pay $25,000 to have your product displayed on the top shelf, it is illegal and unethical to bribe a foreign government official. If Delectables Corp. pays the bribe, the company will lose credibility. From a shareholders theory point of you it would be profitable to do business in San Lopegattia. From a deontological view it is completely wrong and unethical as well as illegal. I would hate be part of a company that conducts such unethical business.