Maple Leaf Foods Essay

Maple Leaf Foods Essay

During the summer of 08 there was a widespread break out of listeriosis linked to deli meats manufactured in a Maple Leaf Foods, Inc. (Maple Leaf) grow in Barcelone, Canada. The outbreak said over 20 lives and sickened hundreds. This reaction newspaper will take a deeper go through the crisis, assess the company’s response, and address ethical issues relevant to the case just like responsibility, trustworthiness, and transparency. Similar cases involving recalls made by Menu Foods, Tylenol and Mattel will be reviewed as a contrast. Listeriosis is an infection due to the bacteria Listeria monocytogenes. Listeria is a common bacterium found in all sorts of meals plants although is dangerous at substantial levels, specifically for adults more than fifty, pregnant women, newborns, and individuals with a weakened immune system. The listeria by Maple Leaf was seen in two of its industrial size slicers. The experts believe it absolutely was buried deap inside the devices where it couldn’t end up being cleaned during sanitation. Hostipal wards and pension homes had been providing the contaminated Maple Leaf lean meats to their sufferers and residents respectively. Aged people, vulnerable to the bacteria, started to be ill plus some eventually perished. Michael McCain, Maple Leaf’s CEO, provided a sincere apology immediately after the representatives confirmed the hyperlink between the outbreak and Maple Leaf goods. He described the crises as “the toughest situation we’ve encountered in the a century of this company’s history. ” He then, as a precaution, expanded the recall to include almost all 220 goods produced in the Toronto grow. The costs had been estimated for $20 mil. So who was responsible? Clearly, the listeria was linked back to Maple Leaf, but what about the regulators? Shouldn’t they have collection more exacting policies in order to avoid such occurrences? Or maybe scenarios like this can’t be avoided seeing that listeria can’t be fully eliminated by food vegetation like Maple Leafs. Probably the clinics or pension homes needs to be more careful with the foodstuff they provide to the people with weak immune systems. Some of the factors given could possibly be stretching it but they are valid arguments, nevertheless. Maple Leaf had a decision to make; it may have attempted to defend alone and move responsibility simply by pointing fingers or it might have taken responsibility. Mr. McCain made the choice to take full responsibility. “We had a break, and we took accountability” he says in an interview with Maclean’s magazine. He expanded the recall to add all 220 products created at the plant, which price an estimated $20 million. This individual committed to putting into action safety specifications that are amongst the most conservative in the world. Finally, he chosen to handle law suits as immediately as possible by providing people what they wanted for the most part. The decisions that Mister. McCain produced seem to be expensive ones, for least inside the short run. It is usually argued that Maple Tea leaf, being a public company, posseses an obligation to increase shareholder to start with. Increased costs could negatively impact shareholder value. And so did Mr. McCain associated with right choice? To answer this question we all use Menu Foods, Tylenol, and Mattel as cases and summarize using Tucker’s five queries. In Drive 2007, Menu Foods, a manufacturer of over 80 brands of dog and cat food, recalled 60 million cans of pet food after it had been discovered that the pet food covered wheat gluten tainted with melamine and cyanuric acidity. The combination of the chemicals caused kidney failure and death in some cases. The source of the toxic chemical was traced returning to Chinese family pet food maker, ChemNutra. The corporation did not take care of the call to mind in a timely manner and it failed to assume total responsibility. Rather the CEO tried to represent the company like a victim. Eventually, the recollect cost Menu Foods nearly $53. almost 8 million plus the company faced multiple legal cases. The company’s stock cost fell as much as 91% within a year in the recall and was at some point purchased simply by Simmons Family pet Food in August 2010. More than 20 years ago, several people died due to taking Tylenol, which was infected with cyanide. After research it was discovered that the Tylenol were interfered with. Meeks and Manley, the parent or guardian company, recalled all thirty-one million bottles and created a tamper-proof jar. The recall and the fresh bottle design cost Meeks and Meeks over $100 million. It was a costly push for the corporation in the short-run but it was obviously a smart and ethical technique in the long-run as it helped rebuild costumer confidence inside the company’s goods. Similarly that kicks off in august 2007, Mattel recalled 20 million Oriental manufactured playthings that got potentially poisonous lead color and magnets that could be dislodged. Mattel’s CEO took personal responsibility plus the company strongly notified the population about the recall. Mattel handled the recall quite nicely and could maintain an excellent brand status. From the three examples presented above, the observation may be made that consumers respond much more favourably to companies that have full responsibility when they make a mistake, work quickly to resolve the condition, compensate individuals affected fairly, and act in an honest and clear manner. Tylenol and Mattel might have built costly decisions in the short run but could actually restore customer confidence and improve shareholder value in the long run. Tucker’s five questions is actually a useful way to assess Mr. McCain’s decision to take full responsibility and take pricey measures to further improve the safety software of Maple Leaf. Initially, was the decision profitable? Inside the short run no, but in the future yes your decision was lucrative as revenue levels were maintained. Two, was it legal? Certainly. Three, was it good? Yes, generally it was fair. The people that lost family members will not have them back, but impacted people were paid as quite as possible. Furthermore, the buyers and investors were disseminated to within an honest, genuine, and transparent manner. Your fourth question asks, was it right? Certainly, the right move to make in a hypersensitive situation such as this was to admit to the oversight and act in the the majority of virtuous possible way to correct the wrong. The final problem asks, was it eco friendly? Maple tea leaf committed to making its security standards among the most conservative on the globe. This commitment was a long term decision which has helped foster a lifestyle of high requirements that will boost sustainability over time. In conclusion, Mr. McCain’s decision to take total responsibility and act within an honest and transparent fashion was the correct and ethical decision to make. He was capable to restore client confidence inside the company and increase shareholder value in the long term.

Related Essays