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

譯者: Fatina Tsai 審譯者: Pui-Ching Siu

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

幾年前，你成立了一家 製造「無肉」漢堡的公司。

Your product is now sold in stores worldwide.

你的產品銷售遍及全球。

But you’ve recently received awful news:

但最近，你收到一個壞消息：

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

在某個城市，有三個不相關的人 在吃了你的漢堡後死了。

The police concluded that a criminal targeted your brand,

警方認為犯人針對你的品牌，

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

在至少兩個雜貨店裡 把毒藥注射進產品中。

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

犯人使用的是非常細的器具， 即使在包裝上也看不出痕跡，

making it impossible to determine which products were compromised.

導致無法判別哪些產品被動過手腳。

Your burgers were immediately removed from the two stores

於是在受害人購買的兩個雜貨店，

where the victims bought them.

你的漢堡立刻被下架。

The deaths are headline news,

這起死亡事件成了頭條，

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

嫌犯仍然在逃， 而銷售量也因此大跌。

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

你必須趕快想辦法來處理危機。

Your team comes up with three options:

於是你的團隊提出了三種方法：

1. Do nothing.

1. 不採取任何行動；

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

2. 回收並銷毀這個城市 所有雜貨店裡的產品；

Or 3. Pull and destroy the product worldwide.

3. 回收並銷毀全世界的產品。

Which do you choose?

你會怎麼選擇呢？

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

公司的律師說：「法律上 沒有要求我們召回產品，

because the criminal is fully responsible.

因為犯人承擔所有責任。」

She recommends the first option— doing nothing—

她建議選擇第一個提議： 不採取任何行動——

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

因為她認為召回產品 就表示公司認錯。

But is that the most ethical strategy?

但這是最合乎道德的解決方式嗎？

To gauge the ethicality of each choice,

為了判斷出每個選項的道德性，

you could perform a “stakeholder analysis.”

你可以採取「利益相關者分析」。

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

這可以讓你衡量各個利益相關者：

investors, employees, and customers— against one another.

投資人、員工和顧客間的利害關係。

With the first option

以第一個選項來說，

your advisors project that the crisis will eventually blow over.

你的顧問認為危機終究會過去。

Sales will then improve but probably stay below prior levels

到時銷售量會好轉， 但因為品牌形象受損，

because of damage to the brand.

可能無法達到之前的標準。

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

因此，你得解僱一些員工，

and investors will suffer minor losses.

而投資人也會有些輕微的損失。

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

但如果嫌犯還有在其他地方下毒， 可能會出現更多死亡案例。

The second option is expensive in the short-term

第二個選項在短期看來， 付出的代價會有點高；

and will require greater employee layoffs

而且需要解雇更多的員工，

and additional financial loss to investors.

投資人也必須承擔額外的損失。

But this option is safer for customers in the city

但對當地顧客來說， 這對他們的安全比較有保障，

and could create enough trust that sales will eventually rebound.

當信任達到一定程度， 銷售量將再度回升。

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

第三個選項在短期來說， 需要付出的代價最高；

and will require significant employee layoffs and investor losses.

必須大規模裁員， 投資人也會有鉅額損失。

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

雖然沒有任何證據顯示 這是一宗國際性犯罪，

this option provides the greatest customer protection.

但這個選項對顧客來說， 提供了最大的保障。

Given the conflict between the interests of your customers

在了解顧客、投資人和員工

versus those of your investors and employees,

之間的利害衝突後，

which strategy is the most ethical?

哪一種最合乎道德呢？

To make this decision, you could consider these tests:

在做決定前，你可以 參考這幾個評估方式：

First is the Utilitarian Test:

第一個是功利測驗。

Utilitarianism is a philosophy concerned

功利主義是一種哲學理論，

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

注重於將最大多數人的 利益放到最大。

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

在這個觀點下，每個選擇 會帶來什麼影響？

Second is the Family Test:

第二個是家族測驗。

How would you feel explaining your decision to your family?

在跟家人解釋你的決定時， 你有什麼樣的感覺？

Third is the Newspaper Test:

第三個是報紙測驗。

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

如果你在當地報紙頭版看到這個新聞， 心裡會有什麼想法？

And finally, you could use the Mentor Test:

最後一個是導師測驗。

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

試著想想某些你很崇拜的人， 他們會做出什麼樣的選擇？

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

嬌生公司的執行長詹姆斯·柏克， 在 1982 年曾遇到類似的狀況。

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

犯人在芝加哥將有毒氰化物 加入泰諾止痛藥的罐子裡，

Seven people died and sales dropped.

因此導致 7 人喪命，銷售量大跌。

Industry analysts said the company was done for.

企業分析師覺得這公司沒戲唱了。

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

當時，柏克做了一個決定： 回收全世界上架中的泰諾。

citing customer safety as the company’s highest priority.

讓大家知道這家公司 把顧客安全放在首位。

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

嬌生回收並銷毀的泰諾 估計有 3200 萬瓶，

valued at 250 million in today’s dollars.

價值等同現在的 2 億 5 千萬美金。

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

他們檢測了 150 萬瓶回收的產品，

其中有 3 件，都來自芝加哥地區，

all from the Chicago area—

were found to contain cyanide.

都被驗出含有氰化物。

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

柏克的決定讓公司重獲顧客的信任，

and product sales rebounded within a year.

銷售量也在一年內回升。

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

泰諾謀殺案讓嬌生成為

防篡改包裝技術的領頭羊，

in developing tamper-resistant packaging

and the government instituted stricter regulations.

政府也制定了更嚴格的規定。

The killer, meanwhile, was never caught.

另外，嫌犯到現在都沒有被抓到。

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

柏克的決定在第一時間 阻止了死亡人數增加，

but the federal government investigated hundreds of copycat tampering incidents

但聯邦政府在接下來的幾個星期

調查了上百件其他產品的篡改事件。

involving other products in the following weeks.

Could these have been prevented with a different response?

如果當初換一種處理方式， 這場風暴可以被壓制嗎？

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

柏克這麼做是為了大眾的利益， 還是為了自己的公司呢？

Was this good ethics or good marketing?

這是良好的道德， 還是良好的行銷手法呢？

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

和別的道德困境一樣， 答案並非對錯分明。

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

而你的無肉漢堡企業該如何？ 選擇權在你自己手上。