The ethical dilemma in this situation is whether to ignore the health of customers by labeling the chicken as “free range” for a 20% increase on the price. The idea of “free range” is to open the door to the hen house for five minutes a day so that the chicken will have access outside of the house. This allows the chicken to exercise and burn off any fat they may have. However, it is stated that very few chickens leave the house therefore the idea of “free range” doesn’t mean anything. This does however allow the company to still label their chicken “free range” which gives misleading information to customers. The idea of “free range” also could be used vaguely regarding the space per chicken and number of chickens. A company could do either …show more content…
It shows that the company shows honesty and will create value to customers. The second alternative is costly because the company would need to hire more workers but would be better for their company image. If a company hires more personnel that will ensure the chickens do go outside the pen house, that will maintain the space per chicken or the amount of chickens in a house, it provides insurance to customers. This will also build relationship between the company and customer. The last alternative is that if a company were to vaguely use “free range” on their packaging, they should not be over-charging prices for profit if they are not over-compensating for the labeling. I recommend hiring more personnel to ensure the quality of the product which will benefit the customers and the company. Although this alternative is costlier because the company will have to pay wages to the workers, it is not only beneficial to the company but to the economy. By hiring more workers, this action will stimulate the economy. I recommend this alternative because it boosts the image of the company within the company and with the