24.05.2014
1.0 Introduction
Both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations across the world experience ethical issues that must be addressed for the successful realization of the outcomes of these organizations. The ethical issues and dilemma vary from one case to the other, and often compels the organizations to take certain positions based on the ethical values embraced. This study will analyze key problems and ethical dilemma that faced the Human Society of the United States (HSUS), a not-for-profit organization; and General Mills, a for-profit organization. The article will examine the key ethical dilemmas that these two organizations faced, the positions that these organizations took, and the implications.
Part 1: Ethical Dilemma of the not for profit company
1.1 Company Profile
The Human Society of the United States (HSUS) is one of the largest not-for-profit organization in the United States, which has focused on animal protection. The organization focuses on providing a voice for the animals, through advocacy for the protection of animal rights and need to stop any form of animal cruelty practiced in the society. The company believes in creating a truly humane society that values the animal welfare and is concerned for the well-being of the animals. The activities of the organization focus on reducing the suffering of animals, and the creation of social change for the animals in all ways possible (The Humane Society of the United States, 2014).
The organization was founded at a time when there was gross animal cruelty, through poor management of animal slaughtering, lack of clear policies on animal care, and increased animal cruelty in the society for human benefit. The company was formed to respond to these and other related challenges facing the animals by providing direct care and response as regards to the field challenges, and animal crisis issues that arise from time to another. However, with time, the company has expanded its mission to handle many other issues facing animals including promoting right policies that guide animal welfare and rights.
1.2 Ethical Dilemma
The issue of ‘animal slaughter for tests/research’ has remained as one of the ethical dilemmas that the Human Society of the United States (HSUS). Research was and is an important part of a developing society, by the virtue that it allows for new discoveries and inventions that solve a number of issues, such as, medication challenges. However, the process of research often compels for the use of animals in the laboratories, which provides room for animal abuses, and cruelty is making this one of the challenging ethical dilemmas. One may be torn between the necessity for research/tests by use of animal species, and its benefits and the challenge of animal cruelty that affects the animals. The Human Society of the United States (HSUS) has faced this ethical dilemma, where the company supports research programs, but is opposed to animal cruelty and related issues that take place in the laboratories (Rudacille, 2000).
This has been a major ethical dilemma in the United States as policy makers, the Government, and the Human Society of the United States (HSUS) continually work on a way to find a solution to the problem. Human Society of the United States (HSUS) strongly defends on then regulation on the way animals in research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers are treated. This is by the virtue that animals caught within this situation often end up suffering and undergoing much cruelty from the handlers. The society finds it necessary for regulation of these activities to ensure that animal rights are protected, and animals are not taken through cruelty in the hands of the handlers. For instance, the society is against the practice of transporting animals by truck, rail carrier, and express carrier for days without rest, food, and water (Rudacille, 2000).
1.3 Company Response
The Human Society of the United States (HSUS) responded to this ethical dilemma by taking on a position on the way animals used for research/test must be handled. The society responded by supporting the view for regulation of experimentation conducted upon animals. In this context, all the processes and activities that animals used for research are undertaken should be regulated to minimize cruelty to the animals. This position began with the onset of the organization, when the organization strongly supported the legislation that made it no legal obligation for privately operated humane society to be compelled by law to provide animals for experimental use. The HSUS took the position that an animal experimentation should be regulated to minimize animal cruelty and abuse. This position was enforced, by the society’s move to send investigators to laboratories to confirm that standard conditions against animal neglect and suffering are provided.
Secondly, the company also responded to these ethical issues by collaborating with the Government and other animal protection bodies in supporting a number of legislation that protect animals from cruelty. The Human Society of the United States (HSUS) partnered with other stakeholders in ensuring that critical laws to the protection of animal rights are enacted and enforced. This paved way for the formulation and enactment of the 1958 Humane Slaughter Act, passed only four years after HSUS’s formation. In addition, the 1966 Animal Welfare Act was also signed into law, allowing the regulation of the care and use of animals in the laboratory. This federal law regulated the way animals are handled in tests, transport and exhibitions among others (Jeremy & Marchant-Forde, 2010).
1.4 Outcomes
After the company took on the stand that an animal for research/tests in laboratory must be regulated; a number of outcomes (legal, social, or political) emerged. The social outcome was that the society began appreciating animals as an important part of the society and needs care and proper handling. The society experienced an awakening in the way they perceived animals and the role of animals in the society. Secondly, the legal outcomes were in terms of the laws that were formed to protect animal rights and promote regulation of animals for research/tests. This legislation includes; the humane slaughter legislation, which was passed in 1958, the animal welfare Act, the humane methods of slaughter Act, twenty-eight hour law, and the horse protection Act among others.
Part 2: Ethical Dilemma of the not for profit company
2.1 Company Profile
General Mills is one of the largest food companies that supply its products in more than 100 countries. The company has categorized its business segments in three sectors, which include the US Retail, the international and convenience stores, and lastly, the foodservice. Over the years, the company has expanded in size and market influence from a mere size of two flour mills in 1860s. Today, the company has revolutionized the global milling industry by producing flour with superior baking properties. The company further expanded from the 60s beyond being a food company, by engaging in marketing children's products such as Spiro graph, Monopoly and Nerf balls, Play-Doh, Easy and Bake Ovens among others (Wojahn, 2003).
2.2 The ethical dilemma
The ethical dilemma that the company faced was the issue of ‘profits versus health and well-being of its consumers.' This major ethical dilemma has faced the company in its pursuit to boost its profit margins, and meet the health needs of its consumers. The main challenge has been it is more costly to produce foods with fewer calories, and proper dietary contents, a move that will have a significant impact on the profit margins of the company. The company has been thrown into an ethical dilemma due to the pressure it faces to improve the dietary quality of its products by investing on technologies and processes that would minimize calorie levels of its products released to the market (Wojahn, 2003).
This ethical dilemma faces General Mills, and other food companies in the United States, as increased advocacy for healthy eating and food safety takes stage in the US. The Government, organizations on food security and safety, as well as, consumers has become increasingly concerned on the healthy eating and access to healthy foods. This has put pressure on General Mills to consider investing on technologies and workforce to produce foods with fewer calories and more dietary contents, a move that adds cost on the cost of production, which will have an impact on the profit margins of the company. The company has been thrown in an ethical dilemma of seeking on ways to address the need to provide healthy food, without compromising its profitability in its markets (Wojahn, 2003).
2.3 Organizations Response
General Mills responded to this ethical dilemma by choosing to dedicate itself to promoting healthy eating and food safety. The company committed itself to undertaking progressive steps towards improving its products released to the market. However, to avoid affecting its profits, the company has taken on a progressive approach to developing technologies that will enable the company produces healthier foods, with fewer amounts of calories. This has worked well for the company by allowing it to gain a good brand image in the local American market and other companies (Bekoff, & Meaney, 2013).
In addition, the company developed a new policy promoting healthy eating and food safety. This is captured in the company’s website, where a number of new recipes and suggestions o calorie control, portion control, and dietary choices are developed. The company has committed itself to working towards reducing the amounts of calories in its food in a progressive manner with a view to promote the healthy wellbeing of its consumers, as well as, promote the continuity of its business. This has worked well in ensuring that food security is guaranteed, and the consumer’s health and wellbeing standards are not compromised. It has also brought the company to the limelight as a health conscious company (Global Responsibility, 2013).
On the same note, the company has taken progressive steps to promote the delivery and access to healthy food by consumers. First, from the year 2004, the company increased its funding on research and development spending on health and wellness. In addition, the company has set aside 10% of its priority ingredients, which represent 50% of its annual purchases to undergo improved sustainability process. In addition, the company from 2012 has reduced 40% of its waste generation, a move that is geared towards improving the communities’ wellbeing. All these efforts have boosted the brand value of the company leading to its success in penetrating in the local and international markets (Wojahn, 2003).
2.4 Outcomes
After the actions mentioned were undertaken, a number of outcomes were realized. The first outcome was that the company was in a position to align its objectives with the community needs. The company was in a position to comply with the Government’s call for the manufacture and distribution of healthy foods in the market. Indeed, General Mills has won great favor from the Government’s publicity of the company, as a role model company that has been on the frontline with regard to its commitment to healthy living among its commitments. This is captured in the company’s vision, “nurturing lives.”
The other outcome of this decision was the political outcome, where the company has won favor with the current US Government. This favor comes amidst its commitment to minimizing calories in its food and increasing nutritional value of its food products. This has led to improved publicity of the company on its commitment on the betterment of the lives of its food consumers. Ultimately, it has raised up the future likelihood of the company to make more sales and realize high profit margins.
Part 3: Personal Reflection
In my view, an ethical dilemma as regards the use of animals for research/tests and the way they should be handled was not created by the organization. This ethical dilemma was created by the current need by the society to engage in many research studies, whose findings may have solutions to a number of solutions in many fields. This problem was caused by the early researchers who were not concerned with animal welfare, but for, the need to conducted their research. This led to many animals being taken through acts of cruelty in the laboratories in an attempt to collect the findings from certain research. The Human Society of the United States (HSUS) did the right thing first by creating increased publicity on the issue of animal cruelty in laboratories and in the hands of the researchers.
In relation to the ethical dilemma on the use of animals for research/test and the position by the Human Society of the United States (HSUS) for regulation of animal use for research test, I find this action appropriate. I find this action appropriate by the virtue that the regulation of animal use for research/test provides room for controls in the way animas for use in research/test are handled. This action step is also good for it gives the research organizations involved in use of animals for test to take responsibility on the way they treat the animals they use in their laboratories. This action plan provides room for the companies involved in research by use of animals to account on how they handle the animals, and to engage in the right practices as regards animals welfare in relation to research/tests. This allows for minimal animals cruelty to be conducted by these companies, due to the close supervision on the way animals are treated in the hands of these companies before, during and after the tests. Ultimately, the animal rights observed by the animal handlers lead to successful research and minimal animal cruelty.
In addition, I also find the ethical dilemma facing General Mills a problem that was caused by many of the corporates, which wanted to make more money without looking into the health implications of their action. Greed causes this ethical dilemma by many of the corporates that wanted to make cheap food items with many calories, avoiding the extra costs of making food with fewer calories at the expense of the people’s health. This problem is caused by the way most of the companies in the food and fast food sector are narrowly minded on making profits, as opposed to considering the health implications of the consumers of the food items that have been supplied. From my ethical standpoint, this is a problem of greed by many of the food companies. These food companies want to make a quick sale without having concern for the adverse health impacts of supplying foods with much calories to the market.
General Mills responded in a morally irresponsible way by the virtue that the company took a progressive approach to producing and marketing healthy food to the market. The company responded well by creating room by which consumers can access foods with fewer calories, and the company can still make profits out of the sale. The choice to embrace technologies that would boost the production of food items with fewer calories was a timely move by the company by the virtue that it allows the company to sell more, in addition, this has worked well for the company by allowing it to gain a good brand image in the local American market and other markets.
Part 4: Critique of the actions of these companies
The Human Society of the United States (HSUS) action to support regulation of animals use for research/tests, even as it supports research work is a decision based on the ethical egoism theory standpoint. This is by virtue that the ethical egoism theory defends that an action is right of the consequences that would come from that action would be more favorable, as opposed to being unfavorable to the agent performing the action. The act of regulating the use of animals for research and test, and need for care to be undertaken for animals used for research has favorable consequences to the society, and the Government, which regulates such an action, . The decision is favorable to the Human Society of the United States (HSUS), for it allows the society to see to it that animals for research are well handled during transportation and in the laboratories. The due care and handling of the animals for research ensure that minimal animal cruelty is committed by the researchers handling the animal (Praveen & Cullen, 2013).
In addition, I feel this is the best ethical position, and it would be better to utilize in this situation. I believe that this is the best ethical position for it puts the agents taking the action into accountability. In this context, the agent committing the action must have the right objectives to guide the decision to be undertaken. The application of this theory has ensured that the outcome of the decision to have regulation on the animals used for research is given priority. Ultimately, the right decision has been arrived at, for through regulating the animals for research, as well as, the way the animals are handled; then, better outcomes are achieved out of the process (Timmons, 2012).
I believe that the ethical decision by General Mills to engage in progressive production of food items with fewer calories for supply to its market has been based on the Utilitarianism theory. This is by the virtue that this theory argues that an action is morally right if its consequences are more favorable than being unfavorable to others. In this theory, the consequences of an action to others determine the morality of the decision undertaken. In this context, the decision by General Mills to engage in progressive production of foods with fewer calories was motivated by the need to ensure that the many consumers who use the food products have healthy outcomes from consuming the food. The decision was motivated by the need to boost favorable outcomes of high food healthy and safety from the consumption of the food supplied by the company (Wilkens, 2011).
In my view, I find this position as the best ethical perspective that would have been taken by virtue that it is not selfish. The decision has been undertaken for the common good of the society, and the consumers of the food items produced by General Mills. This has worked best in allowing the consumers of the company to access healthy food. On the other side, it has worked greatly in allowing the company to enjoy good public image. The choice to invest in healthy food items with fewer calories added to the publicity of the company as a company committed to promoting health and well-being of its consumers (Melden, 2008).
References
Bekoff, M. & Meaney, C. (2013). Animal Rights and Animal Welfare. London: Routledge.
Global Responsibility (2013), General Mills. Available at:
http://www.generalmills.com/~/media/Files/CSR/2013_global_respon_report.ashx
Jeremy N. & Marchant-Forde, M. (2010). The Encyclopedia of Applied Animal Behaviour and Welfare. NewYork: CABI.
Melden, A. (2008). Ethical Theories. London: Read Books.
Praveen, K. & Cullen, J. (2013). Business Ethics. London: Routledge.
Rudacille, D. (2000). The Conflict between Animal Research and Animal Rights. California: University of California Press.
Timmons, M. (2012). Moral Theory: An Introduction. NewYork: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
The Humane Society of the United States (2014). Available at/:
http://www.humanesociety.org
Wilkens, S. (2011). An Introduction to Theories of Right and Wrong. NewYork: InterVarsity Press.
Wojahn, E. (2003). The General Mills. NewYork: Beard Books.
Gray, J. (2004). The Story of General Mills. Minnesota: U of Minnesota Press.
