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

Reviewer: Thomas Tam

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

幾年前

你成立咗間生產無肉漢堡嘅公司

Your product is now sold in stores worldwide.

宜家啲產品賣到全世界

But you’ve recently received awful news:

但最近收到個可怕消息

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

一個城市度有三個唔相關嘅人

食完你嘅漢堡之後死鬼咗

The police concluded that a criminal targeted your brand,

警察嘅結論係你個品牌 成為咗罪犯嘅目標

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

喺最少兩間雜貨鋪

有毒藥注入咗你嘅產品

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

兇手用啲精細嘅儀器

喺包裝度完全冇留低任何線索

making it impossible to determine which products were compromised.

所以冇法確定 有邊啲產品注入咗毒藥

Your burgers were immediately removed from the two stores

你即刻去受害人去過嘅兩間鋪頭

where the victims bought them.

將所有漢堡下架

The deaths are headline news,

「無肉漢堡毒死人」成為咗頭條

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

殺手仍然逍遙法外

加上銷量急挫

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

你一定要儘快諗個策略 解決呢個危機

Your team comes up with three options:

你嘅團隊諗咗三個方案：

1. Do nothing.

１. 咩都唔做

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

２. 將城市入面嘅所有產品回收同銷毀

Or 3. Pull and destroy the product worldwide.

３. 擴大範圍，將全世界嘅產品回收及銷毀

Which do you choose?

你會揀邊個方案呢？

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

你公司嘅律師向你解釋 喺法律上回收唔係必須嘅

because the criminal is fully responsible.

罪犯先至係要負全責

She recommends the first option— doing nothing—

佢推薦用第一個方案——

咩都唔去做——

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

因為回收產品 睇落好似公司認錯咁

But is that the most ethical strategy?

但係咪最道德嘅策略呢？

To gauge the ethicality of each choice,

為咗衡量每個方案嘅道德標準

you could perform a “stakeholder analysis.”

你可以做個「持份者分析」

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

咁就可以衡量到 關鍵持份者嘅利益——

investors, employees, and customers— against one another.

投資者、員工同顧客—— 作互相比較

With the first option

第一個方案

your advisors project that the crisis will eventually blow over.

你嘅顧問覺得危機最終都會過去

Sales will then improve but probably stay below prior levels

銷量之後會升返 但因為品牌受損

because of damage to the brand.

銷量可能會低過之前嘅水平

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

最後，你就要遣散部分員工

and investors will suffer minor losses.

投資者會有輕微嘅損失

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

但如果周圍都係落咗毒嘅產品

就會有更多顧客死亡

The second option is expensive in the short-term

第二個方案短期嚟講會好昂貴

and will require greater employee layoffs

亦都要遣散更多嘅員工

and additional financial loss to investors.

而且投資者會損失更多

But this option is safer for customers in the city

但就對整個城市嘅顧客最安全

亦都可以建立足夠嘅信任

and could create enough trust that sales will eventually rebound.

咁之後銷售最終都會反彈

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

第三個方案短期嚟講係最昻貴

and will require significant employee layoffs and investor losses.

因為咁做需要大量裁員 同投資者嘅損失會好慘重

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

即使冇證據表明話係國際威脅

this option provides the greatest customer protection.

但呢個方案為顧客提供咗最大嘅保障

Given the conflict between the interests of your customers

對比顧客

versus those of your investors and employees,

與投資者同員工嘅利益

which strategy is the most ethical?

邊個策略最合符道德呢？

To make this decision, you could consider these tests:

要決定，你可以考慮呢幾個測試：

First is the Utilitarian Test:

首先係功利測試：

Utilitarianism is a philosophy concerned

功利主義

將最大利益帶畀最多人嘅哲學

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

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

咁每個方案會對佢哋有咩影響呢？

Second is the Family Test:

第二係家庭測試：

How would you feel explaining your decision to your family?

同你屋企人解釋你嘅決定時 你會有咩感受？

Third is the Newspaper Test:

第三係新聞測試：

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

如果你喺當地報紙嘅頭版 睇到呢件事，會有咩感受呢？

And finally, you could use the Mentor Test:

最後，用尊敬嘅導師測試：

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

如果係你尊敬嘅人 佢又會決定點做呀？

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

強生行政總裁 James Burk

喺 1982 年都面對類似問題

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

當有罪犯喺芝加哥將毒氰化物

放咗喺裝泰諾嘅樽之後

Seven people died and sales dropped.

令到七個人死亡，泰諾銷量下降

Industry analysts said the company was done for.

啲工業分析話呢間公司已經玩完

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

Burke 決定咗應對嘅措施 就係將世界各地嘅泰諾下架

citing customer safety as the company’s highest priority.

將顧客安全放喺公司嘅第一位

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

強生回收並銷毀咗 約 3,200 萬支泰諾

valued at 250 million in today’s dollars.

價值係今日嘅 2.5 億美金

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

回收返嚟嘅 150 萬支

測試咗入面有三支—— 全部嚟自芝加哥地區——

all from the Chicago area—

were found to contain cyanide.

驗出有氰化物

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

Burke 決定為公司贏返啲顧客信心

and product sales rebounded within a year.

產品銷量喺一年內就反彈

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

泰諾謀殺案驅使下

強生成為咗防損包裝開發嘅領導者

in developing tamper-resistant packaging

and the government instituted stricter regulations.

而政府亦制定咗更嚴格嘅規定

The killer, meanwhile, was never caught.

同時，兇手依然未拉到

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

Burke 嘅決定

避免咗落毒初期造成更多人死亡

but the federal government investigated hundreds of copycat tampering incidents

但之後幾個星期

聯邦政府調查咗幾百宗

牽涉到其他有「做手腳」嘅產品事件

involving other products in the following weeks.

Could these have been prevented with a different response?

如果當初用其他方法 一切又避唔避免到呢？

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

到底 Burke 係為咗大眾 定係公司嘅利益咁做？

Was this good ethics or good marketing?

到底係有道德呀 定係識做生意呢？

咁就同所有嘅道德難題一樣

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

答案都係冇明確嘅對同錯

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

至於你嘅無肉漢堡王國

決定權仲喺你嘅手上