A few years ago, you founded a company that manufactures meatless burgers. Your product is now sold in stores worldwide. But you’ve recently received awful news: three unrelated people in one city died after eating your burgers. The police concluded that a criminal targeted your brand, injecting poison into your product in at least two grocery stores. The culprit used an ultrafine instrument that left no trace on the packaging, making it impossible to determine which products were compromised. Your burgers were immediately removed from the two stores where the victims bought them. The deaths are headline news, the killer is still at large, and sales have plummeted.
幾年前 你成立咗間生產無肉漢堡嘅公司 宜家啲產品賣到全世界 但最近收到個可怕消息 一個城市度有三個唔相關嘅人 食完你嘅漢堡之後死鬼咗 警察嘅結論係你個品牌 成為咗罪犯嘅目標 喺最少兩間雜貨鋪 有毒藥注入咗你嘅產品 兇手用啲精細嘅儀器 喺包裝度完全冇留低任何線索 所以冇法確定 有邊啲產品注入咗毒藥 你即刻去受害人去過嘅兩間鋪頭 將所有漢堡下架 「無肉漢堡毒死人」成為咗頭條 殺手仍然逍遙法外
You must quickly develop a strategy to deal with the crisis. Your team comes up with three options:
加上銷量急挫 你一定要儘快諗個策略 解決呢個危機
1. Do nothing.
你嘅團隊諗咗三個方案: 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 because the criminal is fully responsible. She recommends the first option— doing nothing— because recalling the product could look like an admission of fault.
你公司嘅律師向你解釋 喺法律上回收唔係必須嘅 罪犯先至係要負全責 佢推薦用第一個方案—— 咩都唔去做—— 因為回收產品 睇落好似公司認錯咁
But is that the most ethical strategy? To gauge the ethicality of each choice, you could perform a “stakeholder analysis.” This would allow you to weigh the interests of some key stakeholders— investors, employees, and customers— against one another.
但係咪最道德嘅策略呢? 為咗衡量每個方案嘅道德標準 你可以做個「持份者分析」 咁就可以衡量到 關鍵持份者嘅利益—— 投資者、員工同顧客—— 作互相比較
With the first option your advisors project that the crisis will eventually blow over. Sales will then improve but probably stay below prior levels because of damage to the brand. As a result, you’ll have to lay off some employees, and investors will suffer minor losses. But more customers could die if the killer poisoned packages elsewhere.
第一個方案 你嘅顧問覺得危機最終都會過去 銷量之後會升返 但因為品牌受損 銷量可能會低過之前嘅水平 最後,你就要遣散部分員工 投資者會有輕微嘅損失 但如果周圍都係落咗毒嘅產品
The second option is expensive in the short-term and will require greater employee layoffs and additional financial loss to investors. But this option is safer for customers in the city and could create enough trust that sales will eventually rebound.
就會有更多顧客死亡 第二個方案短期嚟講會好昂貴 亦都要遣散更多嘅員工 而且投資者會損失更多 但就對整個城市嘅顧客最安全 亦都可以建立足夠嘅信任
The third option is the most expensive in the short-term and will require significant employee layoffs and investor losses. Though you have no evidence that these crimes are an international threat, this option provides the greatest customer protection.
咁之後銷售最終都會反彈 第三個方案短期嚟講係最昻貴 因為咁做需要大量裁員 同投資者嘅損失會好慘重 即使冇證據表明話係國際威脅 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 versus those of your investors and employees, which strategy is the most ethical? To make this decision, you could consider these tests:
對比顧客 與投資者同員工嘅利益 邊個策略最合符道德呢? 要決定,你可以考慮呢幾個測試:
First is the Utilitarian Test: Utilitarianism is a philosophy concerned with maximizing the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. What would be the impact of each option on these terms?
首先係功利測試: 功利主義 將最大利益帶畀最多人嘅哲學 咁每個方案會對佢哋有咩影響呢?
Second is the Family Test: How would you feel explaining your decision to your family?
第二係家庭測試: 同你屋企人解釋你嘅決定時 你會有咩感受?
Third is the Newspaper Test: how would you feel reading about it on the front page of the local newspaper?
第三係新聞測試: 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: If someone you admire were making this decision, what would they do?
最後,用尊敬嘅導師測試: 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 after a criminal added the poison cyanide to bottles of Tylenol in Chicago. Seven people died and sales dropped. Industry analysts said the company was done for. In response, Burke decided to pull Tylenol from all shelves worldwide, citing customer safety as the company’s highest priority. Johnson & Johnson recalled and destroyed an estimated 32 million bottles of Tylenol valued at 250 million in today’s dollars. 1.5 million of the recalled bottles were tested and 3 of them— all from the Chicago area— were found to contain cyanide. Burke’s decision helped the company regain the trust of its customers, and product sales rebounded within a year. Prompted by the Tylenol murders, Johnson & Johnson became a leader in developing tamper-resistant packaging and the government instituted stricter regulations. The killer, meanwhile, was never caught.
強生行政總裁 James Burk 喺 1982 年都面對類似問題 當有罪犯喺芝加哥將毒氰化物 放咗喺裝泰諾嘅樽之後 令到七個人死亡,泰諾銷量下降 啲工業分析話呢間公司已經玩完 Burke 決定咗應對嘅措施 就係將世界各地嘅泰諾下架 將顧客安全放喺公司嘅第一位 強生回收並銷毀咗 約 3,200 萬支泰諾 價值係今日嘅 2.5 億美金 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—— 驗出有氰化物 Burke 決定為公司贏返啲顧客信心 產品銷量喺一年內就反彈 泰諾謀殺案驅使下 強生成為咗防損包裝開發嘅領導者 而政府亦制定咗更嚴格嘅規定 同時,兇手依然未拉到
Burke’s decision prevented further deaths from the initial poisoning, but the federal government investigated hundreds of copycat tampering incidents involving other products in the following weeks. Could these have been prevented with a different response? Was Burke acting in the interest of the public or of his company? Was this good ethics or good marketing? As with all ethical dilemmas, this has no clear right or wrong answer.
Burke 嘅決定 避免咗落毒初期造成更多人死亡 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 如果當初用其他方法 一切又避唔避免到呢? 到底 Burke 係為咗大眾 定係公司嘅利益咁做? 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 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