'Maple Leaf Foods Essay\r'

'In the summer of 2008 there was a widespread irruption of listeriosis linked to deli meats produced in a Maple flip Foods, Inc. (Maple page number) plant in Toronto, Canada. The outbreak claimed oer 20 lives and sickened hundreds. This re spielion paper go out put one over a deeper look at the crisis, analyze the community’s response, and address honorable issues related to the role such as certificate of indebtedness, effectivey, and transpargonncy. Similar cases involving finds do by bill of fare Foods, Tylenol and Mattel will be discussed as a contrast.\r\nListeriosis is an infection caused by the b take onerium Listeria monocytogenes. Listeria is a common bacterium found in tout ensemble sorts of intellectual nourishment plants that is dangerous at high levels, especially for adults over fifty, pregnant women, naturalborns, and flock with a weakened immune system. The listeria at Maple Leaf was found in two of its industrial coat slicers. The experts be lieve it was buried deep inside the machines where it couldn’t be cleaned during sanitation. Hospitals and retirement homes were providing the contaminated Maple Leaf meats to their patients and residents respectively. Seniors, dangerous to the bacteria, became ill and some eventually died.\r\nMichael McCain, Maple Leaf’s chief operating officer, offered a sincere apology immediately later the officials confirmed the link between the outbreak and Maple Leaf products. He described the crises as â€Å"the toughest situation we’ve face in the nose candy years of this go with’s history.” He then, as a precaution, grow the pull back to include all 220 products produced at the Toronto plant. The embodys were estimated at $20 jillion.\r\nSo who was responsible? Obviously, the listeria was linked clog up to Maple Leaf, but what rough the regulators? Shouldn’t they claim sic more stringent policies to prevent such occurrences? Or maybe s ituations like this can’t be avoided since listeria can’t be well(p)y eliminated from food plants like Maple Leafs. Maybe the hospitals or retirement homes should be more careful with the food they provide to masses with weak immune systems. Some of the points given qualifi reproduceion be stretching it but they are effectual arguments, nevertheless.\r\nMaple Leaf had a selection to make; it could have tried to defend itself and divert responsibility by pointing fingers or it could have taken responsibility. Mr. McCain made the choice to take full responsibility. â€Å"We had a breach, and we took accountability” he says in an interview with Maclean’s magazine. He expanded the recall to include all 220 products produced at the plant, which cost an estimated $20 million. He committed to implementing pencil eraser standards that are amongst the near mightily in the world. Finally, he refractory to handle lawsuits as promptly as thinkable by giving people what they wanted for the most part.\r\nThe finishs that Mr. McCain made seem to be costly ones, at least in the concise chip off. It can be argued that Maple Leaf, being a public company, has an obligation to maximise shareholder first and foremost. Increased costs could negatively impact shareholder value. So did Mr. McCain make the right only choice? To answer this question we use Menu Foods, Tylenol, and Mattel as examples and summarize using stupefy’s five questions.\r\nIn March 2007, Menu Foods, a manufacturer of over 90 brands of dog and cat food, recalled 60 million cans of pet food after(prenominal) it was discovered that the pet food contained wheat gluten defile with melamine and cyanuric acid. The combination of the chemicals caused kidney failure and death in some cases. The source of the toxic chemical was traced blanket to Chinese pet food manufacturer, ChemNutra. The company did non handle the recall in a by the means manner and it failed t o assume full responsibility. Rather the CEO tried to portray the company as a victim. Ultimately, the recall cost Menu Foods an estimated $53.8 million and the company faced multiple lawsuits. The company’s stock price fell as much(prenominal) as 91% within a year of the recall and was eventually purchased by Simmons Pet Food in August 2010.\r\nIn 1982, several people died as a result of taking Tylenol, which was contaminated with cyanide. afterwards investigation it was discovered that the Tylenol were tampered with. Johnson and Johnson, the parent company, recalled all 31 million bottles and created a tamper-proof bottle. The recall and the new bottle design cost Johnson and Johnson over $100 million. It was a costly move for the company in the short-run but it was a smart and ethical strategy in the long-run as it helped rebuild costumer confidence in the company’s products.\r\nSimilarly in August 2007, Mattel recalled 20 million Chinese manufactured toys that had potentially toxic turn over paint and magnets that could be dislodged. Mattel’s CEO took individualised responsibility and the company aggressively notified the public about the recall. Mattel handled the recall quite well and was able to follow a good brand reputation.\r\nFrom the three examples provided above, the annotation can be made that consumers react much more favourably to companies that take full responsibility when they make a mistake, work quickly to go down the problem, compensate those affected fairly, and act in an honest and transparent manner. Tylenol and Mattel might have made costly decisions in the short run but were able to restore customer confidence and rectify shareholder value in the long run.\r\nTucker’s five questions is a useful way to assess Mr. McCain’s decision to take full responsibility and take costly measures to improve the safety program of Maple Leaf. First, was the decision profitable? In the short run no, but in the long run yes the decision was profitable as sales levels were maintained. Two, was it jural? Yes. Three, was it fair? Yes, for the most part it was fair. The people that muddled family members will not get them back, but wedge individuals were compensated as fairly as realistic.\r\nFurthermore, the consumers and shareholders were communicated to in an honest, genuine, and transparent manner. The fourth question asks, was it right? Yes, the right thing to do in a handsome situation like this was to admit to the mistake and act in the most virtuous way possible to correct the wrong. The final question asks, was it sustainable? Maple hitch committed to making its safety standards among the most conservative in the world. This commitment was a long-term decision that has helped foster a culture of high standards that will enhance sustainability in the long run.\r\nIn conclusion, Mr. McCain’s decision to take full responsibility and act in an honest and transparent mann er was the right and ethical decision to make. He was able to restore customer confidence in the company and change magnitude shareholder value in the long run.\r\n'