Business Ethics

Journal

The end of the case was thought-provoking and surprised all of us. We thought there would be some punishment, but never expected it to be that severe. The first thing came to my mind was that this case sounded an alarm for all the food and pharmaceutical company and I couldn’t help to applause for American judicial system. The CEOs and production managers would know that food safety is not only about the company’s profitability and reputation, but also related to their own freedom.

Then I asked myself, what if this case took place in China? Would Anderson and Storer still be charged for felony and put in jail for that long period? I sincerely doubted it. As some of the classmates said, “It’s only sugar. No one’s gonna be poisoned.” I believe that’s a big difference between criteria of U.S. and that of China. Should the same thing happen in China, the most likely outcome is that the company pays some penalty and change a new brand, and then continue to selling fraud to customers. Nothing happens to the management. And this inefficient legal system is responsible for the countless food security issues in China.

Later Professor Qian asked us an enlightening question: what if Haskins didn’t write the anonymous letter? Would they get away and live happily ever after? Thinking for a brief moment, my answer would be: No. Even if Haskins chose to be silent, there will probably be someone else standing up forcing by his own consciousness. Even if they’re lucky enough to get away this time, they will not be lucky forever. There will most certainly be the second time, the third time, and they will be caught finally.

After the class, I think to myself, what cause this tragedy? Maybe it’s the conflict between short-term profitability and long-term goal. Joining the lawsuit, going public, and not selling the inventory is good for long-term goodwill for the brand yet would surely damage this year’s profit tremendously.

Nestle should also take...