Ethical dilemma: The burger murders - George Siedel and Christine Ladwig

翻译人员: Jason Guo 校对人员: Yanyan Hong

A few years ago, you founded a company that manufactures meatless burgers.

几年前，你成立了 一家生产素食汉堡的公司。

Your product is now sold in stores worldwide.

你的产品目前在世界各地的商店销售。

But you’ve recently received awful news:

但最近你收到了一个糟糕的消息：

three unrelated people in one city died after eating your burgers.

在一个城市中，三个毫不相干的人 在吃了你的汉堡后死亡。

The police concluded that a criminal targeted your brand,

警方认定一个犯罪团伙盯上了你的产品，

injecting poison into your product in at least two grocery stores.

在两家杂货店中的商品注入了毒药。

The culprit used an ultrafine instrument that left no trace on the packaging,

罪魁祸首使用了超缜密的工具， 所以包装上没留任何痕迹，

making it impossible to determine which products were compromised.

这使得你无法判断哪些产品被下了毒。

Your burgers were immediately removed from the two stores

两家受害者购买到有毒汉堡的商店

where the victims bought them.

第一时间下架了你的汉堡。

The deaths are headline news,

致命汉堡成了头条新闻。

the killer is still at large, and sales have plummeted.

凶手仍然逍遥法外，而销售量直线下降，

You must quickly develop a strategy to deal with the crisis.

你必须快速制定策略来应对危机。

Your team comes up with three options:

你的团队想出了以下三种方法：

1. Do nothing.

1. 什么也不做。

2. Pull the products from grocery stores citywide and destroy them.

2. 把汉堡从各个城市里 所有的商店下架并销毁。

Or 3. Pull and destroy the product worldwide.

或者 3. 将世界各地所有的产品销毁。

Which do you choose?

你会怎样做决定？

Your company lawyer explains that a recall is not required by law

你公司的律师解释说， 法律没有要求强制召回产品，

because the criminal is fully responsible.

因为罪犯应为此事全权负责。

She recommends the first option— doing nothing—

她给出的第一种建议是—— 什么也不做——

because recalling the product could look like an admission of fault.

因为召回产品或被认为是在承认错误。

But is that the most ethical strategy?

但这是最符合伦理道德的策略吗？

To gauge the ethicality of each choice,

为了衡量每个选择的道德标准，

you could perform a “stakeholder analysis.”

你可以进行 “利益相关者分析”。

This would allow you to weigh the interests of some key stakeholders—

这可以让你权衡一些 主要利益相关者的利益——

investors, employees, and customers— against one another.

投资人，员工 以及顾客——之间的相互联系。

With the first option

对于第一个选择，

your advisors project that the crisis will eventually blow over.

你的顾问相信危机终将会结束。

Sales will then improve but probably stay below prior levels

销售额将有所改善， 但由于事件对品牌的伤害，

because of damage to the brand.

销售额可能会持续低于先前的水平。

As a result, you’ll have to lay off some employees,

因此，你必须裁掉部分员工，

and investors will suffer minor losses.

这样投资者也可以经受更小损失。

But more customers could die if the killer poisoned packages elsewhere.

但如果凶手在其它的包装上下药的话， 将会有更多的顾客因此丧命。

The second option is expensive in the short-term

第二个选择短期内花费会很高，

and will require greater employee layoffs

并且要裁掉更多的员工。

and additional financial loss to investors.

投资者也会有更多的经济损失。

But this option is safer for customers in the city

但是这个选择对市内的消费者更加安全，

and could create enough trust that sales will eventually rebound.

并可以赢得更多信任 使得销售最终会反弹。

The third option is the most expensive in the short-term

第三种方法是短期内最贵的，

and will require significant employee layoffs and investor losses.

并会造成大量员工流失和投资者的损失。

Though you have no evidence that these crimes are an international threat,

尽管你没有证据证明 这些罪犯会制造国际威胁，

this option provides the greatest customer protection.

但这个选择能给消费者最大的保护。

Given the conflict between the interests of your customers

鉴于你的顾客利益之间的冲突

versus those of your investors and employees,

和你的投资者与员工相比，

which strategy is the most ethical?

哪一个决策才是更符合道德呢？

To make this decision, you could consider these tests:

做决定前，你需要思考这些考量：

First is the Utilitarian Test:

第一是功利主义者心态的考量：

Utilitarianism is a philosophy concerned

功利主义与哲学有关，

with maximizing the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people.

为最多的人争取最大的利益。

What would be the impact of each option on these terms?

每种方案对这些条款的影响是什么？

Second is the Family Test:

第二是家庭里的考量：

How would you feel explaining your decision to your family?

你会怎样向家人解释你的决定？

Third is the Newspaper Test:

第三是新闻中的考量：

how would you feel reading about it on the front page of the local newspaper?

如果你在当地报纸头版上 读到你的决定会作何感想。

And finally, you could use the Mentor Test:

最终是导师考量：

If someone you admire were making this decision, what would they do?

如果你敬仰的人在做这个选择， 他们会怎么选？

Johnson & Johnson CEO James Burke faced a similar challenge in 1982

强生公司 CEO 詹姆斯·伯克 (James Burke) 在 1982 年面临了同样的问题，

after a criminal added the poison cyanide to bottles of Tylenol in Chicago.

犯罪分子在芝加哥 向瓶装泰诺醇中添加了氰化毒后。

Seven people died and sales dropped.

造成七人死亡，销量下滑。

Industry analysts said the company was done for.

业内分析人士称，该公司已经完了。

In response, Burke decided to pull Tylenol from all shelves worldwide,

作为响应，伯克决定 从全球所有货架上撤下泰诺，

citing customer safety as the company’s highest priority.

将客户安全视为公司的首要任务。

Johnson & Johnson recalled and destroyed an estimated 32 million bottles of Tylenol

强生公司召回并销毁了大约 3200 万瓶泰诺，

valued at 250 million in today’s dollars.

价值相当于今天的 2.5 亿美元。

1.5 million of the recalled bottles were tested and 3 of them—

对召回的瓶子中的 150 万瓶 进行了检测，其中有三个——

all from the Chicago area—

全部来自芝加哥地区——

were found to contain cyanide.

被发现含有氰化物。

Burke’s decision helped the company regain the trust of its customers,

伯克的决定帮助他的公司 重新获得了客户的信任，

and product sales rebounded within a year.

产品销售在一年之内反弹。

Prompted by the Tylenol murders, Johnson & Johnson became a leader

在泰诺尔谋杀案的促进下 强生公司在开发防篡改包装中

in developing tamper-resistant packaging

成为了领导者，

and the government instituted stricter regulations.

而政府制定了更严格的规定。

The killer, meanwhile, was never caught.

与此同时，那个凶手从没落网。

Burke’s decision prevented further deaths from the initial poisoning,

伯克的决定避免了在最初的 中毒事件后造成更多的死亡，

but the federal government investigated hundreds of copycat tampering incidents

但联邦政府在接下来数周内 调查了数百起涉及其它产品

involving other products in the following weeks.

仿冒篡改事件。

Could these have been prevented with a different response?

这些是否可以通过不同的应对措施来预防？

Was Burke acting in the interest of the public or of his company?

伯克的做法是在为公司 还是大众的利益着想？

Was this good ethics or good marketing?

这到底是良好的道德还是良好的营销？

As with all ethical dilemmas, this has no clear right or wrong answer.

就像其它道德的难题一样， 这没有明确的对错。

And for your meatless burger empire, the choice remains yours.

而对于你的素食汉堡帝国来说， 选择权依然在你手上。