|
|
| Line 340: |
Line 340: |
| | student advisor: | | student advisor: |
| | Alex Dean | | Alex Dean |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | -What is the ethical dilemma or issue?
| |
| − | The ethical dilemma is that of unfair water distribution. Some may argue that if there is a drought, businesses should pay more for water because they use a limited resource that has a potential of running out. In addition, other businesses, besides Wholesome Burger Company, probably require water usage for functioning. Water may also be needed for other farms or other sectors such as drinking water which is more important for the local population. Consuming less water is more beneficial for the area as well as for other parts of local infrastructure in order to save the resource. The question becomes who has to sacrifice water usage businesses or the local population. Since government is taking control in regulations of water distribution, there is a potential threat of being short of water in the future, and it can lead to complete shortage, resulting in devastating consequences.
| |
| − | -What are the alternatives or possible courses of action? Identify at least 3 alternatives.
| |
| − | One solution might be to recycle and filter already used water. Also, one might replace beef with chicken, promoting lean meat because it takes less water to produce it. Another idea might come to mind is to make plants and farms more efficient in water consumption to get ready in case such issues might arise in the future. Multiple ideas could be taken and applied to actually benefit both the natural environment around the plants or farms as well as cut cost on production. Such actions might be advertised also to consumers to boost company's morals as well as to show consumers that ''we'' care about how our products are produced.
| |
| − | -What are your recommendations? In other words, of the several alternatives you identified, what do you think the company should do?
| |
| − | I think company should be as revolutionary as possible. Whenever there is a shortage of water or other significant issues, it has to constantly look for ways to improve if it wants to dominate the industry and survival in a competitive climate. The company should always look out for ideas where they can consume less and recycle as much as possible and be self sufficient. I think multiple approaches should be taken in all directions in both production and consumption of ingredients to cut down on consumables on every end. Obviously, if such steps were taken in the past no issues would arise in the first place. Since we do have to deal with water shortage, it is a matter of effort in many areas to cut down the consumption.
| |
| − | -What is your rationale for your recommendations? In other words, why do recommend this course of action?
| |
| − | I personally think actions should be taken on multiple ends. Replacing beef with chicken is definitely a huge step for reduction of the consumption of water. Since poultry is considered healthier for human consumption than beef, it might be a new trend of consuming minimal amounts of beef. Also, production of chicken does take less water and perhaps less other materials, and it would benefit initially both the nature and the company as well. It might be hard to regulate consumption of water by the farms. However, regulating ingredients like increasing vegetables and lowering the meat in burgers could be the way to save costs as well. There is also a growing population of vegans and maybe an opening of a line solely for vegan or vegetarian people could potentially grow business in new direction where water consumption could be lowered significantly.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Scenario #2: Chicken International Group
| |
| − | -What is the ethical dilemma or issue?
| |
| − | The ethical dilemma in this case is that while the company is following legal guidelines of labeling chicken as “free range”, it is motivated by profit only. Letting chickens out for five minutes a day is basically the same thing as keeping them crammed inside. When the consumer reads “free range,” he or she will assume that the chicken was outside for a long time, living a stress-free life, which leads to a better quality meat. Opening the coop for 5 minutes obviously won’t do much for the chickens but would bring more profit to the company. While the ethical thing to do would be for the company to publicize the issue and let the consumers know about what is going on behind the scenes, it will not only lose profits but suffer from a backlash from other companies because the main aim of the industry is to earn money not change the world. Lastly, technically, the company is not deceiving the buyers because it does not do anything illegal. Now the question becomes of who should be blame the company, the government or the buyer?
| |
| − | -What are the alternatives or possible courses of actions? Identify at least 3 alternatives?
| |
| − | On solution is to for the the coop to have more doors, so more chickens can go outside during the 5 minute break. Perhaps the problem is not in regulations or the guidelines but in the technology of the farm itself and maybe the farm itself should be somehow modified to let as many chicken to walk around outside as possible within certain time. Also, considering the fact that a high amount of chicken meat distributed to grocery stores is never sold, the company should raise less chickens. That way, these chickens will have more space, facilitating their growth. Of course, while growing less chickens will ensure better quality, fresher meat, the company aims to distribute as much meat as possible to gain more profit. Lastly, the root of the problem is governmental regulations; therefore, they should be targeted in order to solve the problem.
| |
| − | -What are your recommendations? In other words, of the several alternatives you identified, what do you think the company should do?
| |
| − | The best way to resolve the issue would be to have less chickens in each coop and make more doors. While five minutes aren't enough, maybe an hour or more a day would let the chickens benefit from time spent outside in the fresh air. Obviously such decision would require investment but 20% increase in prices would definitely pay off at the end pretty quickly. Selling the meat for a higher price would cover the costs of raising “free range” chickens and sustaining the company. Besides that over all chicken's health would improve and there will be less loss and spread of disease inside each coop. The 20% increase is definitely a lucrative and significant margin but it would require some investment, but in this case everyone would benefit at the end.
| |
| − | -What is your rationale for your recommendations? In other words, why do you recommend this course of action?
| |
| − | Such action would be ideal for pretty much everyone the company, chickens, and the consumer. If one company makes these improvements, then other companies might follow in order to attract more customers, increasing the quality of meat produced. Such decision would not take much investment and could easily applied and return on investment could be completed pretty quick. Overall quality of the product will increase as well and the price margin could help to improve quality in the future. The only downfall in this case as it seems that farms would require more land to be used for the same amount of animals produced.
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| | | | |
| | | | |
