By the end of the work day three additional reports were recorded, at this time the crisis was elevated to a new level as rumors were starting to spread on the internet chat rooms. It was then that approximately 7 pm that evening that the company announced it was pulling all batches of the tainted product, with what seemed to be hysteria of the current situation, another 50 calls came in reporting similar food poisoning cases. The following workday Nutritional Foods upper management convened a committee called the crisis Action committee to evaluate the situation and recommended any further course of action. .
Ethical Dilemma .
The future of the company is at stake here in the form of how Nutritional Foods decides to tackle this conundrum. On one side of the coin the company's CEO has a duty to its main stakeholders (employees, shareholders) in the form of profits by maintaining a positive public perception. The pulling products from the shelf along with any further action can be perceived as an admittance of guilt. There is also inconclusive evidence seen by products from other companies as being contaminated as well. On the other side though, if a company is ethical, they should have a social responsibility to inform their consumers to any health risks that their product might cause.
Ethical Issue .
One main issue to consider in this case would be the relationship between leadership and organization culture. In dealing with such a crisis the path that a company's upper management (in this case James) takes can have profound effect. Culture changes can be either positive or negative, in this particular case a handling the situation in an ethical manner is essential. By having the tainted product pulled and essentially having the perception of admitting guilt by the consumer gives the example to lower level employees that accountability counts. This develops a pattern that can be learned that positively reflects the vision and mission of this company.