The number of Chinese infants sickened by a batch of tainted milk powder increases rapidly. The Chinese Health Ministry authorities announced that more than 6200 babies had fallen ill, many developing kidney stones, as a result of drinking the contaminated milk. According to the authorities, at least three babies have died and more than fifty infants are in a serious and dangerous condition. This is not the end yet, the number of victims can still climb according to the China Daily.
The producer of the milk, the Chinese dairy giant Sanlu Group, has produced milk powder which was contaminated with melamine, a chemical used for making plastics. The New Zealand dairy cooperative Fonterra holds a 43% share in Sanlu and claimed that it already knew back in August 2008 that the milk powder was tainted. However,the Chinese authorities held off on announcing a public recall. The company has been waiting for the recall process which had to move through and approved by the Chinese System. On September 11, Sanlu announced a recall of all its milk powder products made before August 6. Unfortunately, in the mean time, the milk powder has caused severe harm to many sickened babies and their families.
Due to the fact that human beings are practical in nature (Dubbink 2009), we have a choice because we judge before we act. However, human beings are led by practical discourses. In this case, the economic discourse is dominant because Sanlu did not want to damage its profit and reputation which resulted in morally wrong behaviour.
This case raises several questions. Should the Chinese government have recalled the contaminated milk earlier rather than waiting? And what is the role of Fonterra? The firm already knew the milk powder was tainted but they did not take action to stimulate and drive the Chinese government to recall the toxic powder.
Another issue which could be answered can be formulated as follows: Is it morally right that this Chinese firm compromise on the quality and safety of their products in order to maximize their profits?
s646346
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1841535,00.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
First of all, I think that it is very obvious that the Chinese Government should have recalled the contaminated milk much earlier. It is not only their job, but also their duty to take care of their citizens and do everything they can to make shore they are not in any kind of danger. In this case, the government knew that the milk was contaminated and therefore they should have intervened immediately.
Secondly, to answer the question if Fonterra was morally wrong by not coming forward with the information that the milk supply might have been sabotaged (which indeed was the case) I should say that they certainly were immoral. Fonterra has a stake of 43% in the milk powder company Sanlu, and therefore they are also for 43% responsible for Sanlu’s actions. They have the same moral duty to protect their customers for unsafe products, also when it is only for 43%!
To end with, the question if it is morally permissible to compromise on the quality and safety of products to maximize profit, is more difficult to answer. Here the duty to protect customers and also the moral duty to do not harm other human beings are against it, but on the other hand it is also morally right to act in favor of your company; to maximize quality. I should say that it is morally right to compromise on quality and safety but only within limits. That is, within the limits of permissible safety and quality standards that are set by governments and human right organizations. So, in the case of Sanlu, they were morally wrong by producing contaminated milk powder because it caused serous health damage.
A comment on my previous published comment; ‘quality’ should of course be ‘profit’ in the last column. ('Here the duty to protect customers and also the moral duty to do not harm other human beings are against it, but on the other hand it is also morally right to act in favor of your company; to maximize profit'.)
My apology!
From the information in the article about the contaminated milk I would question the way the Chinese government acted instead of Sanlu Milk. It is obvious Sanlu has got the moral obligation to act as soon they noticed failures in their production process and contact the Chinese government. On the other hand the Chinese society is not as well ordered as Western society and therefore this could be an explanation of why there was no announcement to recall the milk on a short notice. Therefore Right can not be constituted in China as in the Western society.
The role Fonterra in this case is the same as for Sanlu Milk. If they executed their duty to notify the Chinese government I think they can’t do anything more. Just because they have a 43% stake in Sanlu Milk does not mean they have the power to overrule decisions of Sanla Milk which possibly influences outcomes in these casus (e.g. some other company owns the other 57% of the shares).
Still this does not say Sanlu Milk did not act morally wrong when using moral theories such as the Right based theories (violation of basic rights) and utilitarian point of view (reduces overall happiness). Therefore reducing quality of their products by Chinese manufactures in a efficient market economy will lead to less sold products and therefore, in general, will not generate additional profits.
I agree that the fact that the Chinese government lagged in the recall of the contaminated milk powder while putting their backward system above the health of the Chinese citizens shows that the concept of Right is not fully incorporated into their laws. Thus, this is a morally wrong action. In addition, this also means that we are dealing with a non-well ordered society. As would be expected in such a country, you would assume that many international companies are confronted with diverse Chinese laws that challenge basic moral standards of Western companies. However, one must not forget the main reason why these companies are there in the first place, that is to perform within a business context and maximize one’s profit globally.
Even though Fonterra holds 43% of shares, both Fonterra and the other share holders comprise Sanlu, which operates in China and must abide by the laws of the country. Yes, they knew about the tainted milk, but whatever could have been done, in the end would still be confronted with the backward system of the Chinese government. Fonterra is obviously bound by a legal contract to uphold the sustainability of the company. To conclude, if Fonterra really felt like something had to be done at once, and went against the Chinese government, they would jeopardize the future of the company. In the end, some would say, business is business however backward the governing system is of that country.
S760211
This case has a problem of moral motivations for the Sanlu Group. It is knows what the morally right course of action is, but the agent lacks motivation to act accordingly. They of course knew from the start that melamine in milk powder would not be completely healthy for babies. So, they knew their actions were morally wrong, because it could harm many babies. Although they might acted out of self-interest, since the more they sell, the higher their profit would be. The government also faced a problem of moral motivation, since they the morally right action would be to recall the powder directly. On the other hand, they probably were afraid of the decrease of their reputation, and therefore acted out of self-interest and would not blaze it abroad.
s289233
Post a Comment