The pressure on companies in a competitive environment drives top executives and other key decision makers to choose unethical pathways. The main parties in this Beech-Nut scenario facing ethical dilemmas would be Lars Hoyvald, John Lavery, and Universal Juice Company. Hoyvald, being the president of Beech-Nut, is in charge of major decisions for the company. Hoyvald’s main dilemma is first whether or not to switch suppliers when he realizes Beech-Nut is selling a misleading product, and then whether to participate in a recall for the products. Lavery, Beech-Nut’s vice president of operations, was faced with an ethical decision when he chose to overlook product testing results and the abnormal low price of the apple concentrate purchased from …show more content…
The first was when Hoyvald knew that Universal Juice Company was supplying a product contradictory to what Beech-Nut thought. Hoyvald should have applied the categorical imperative or rights ethical theory in making his decision. In Hoyvald’s mind, he may have actually thought he was applying a rights ethical theory, except in what he thought was right for himself. Sometimes, executives of companies believe that they deserve to run a successful company and to continue making a fat paycheck instead of thinking about what is right for their customers. The second chance Beech-Nut had in making the right decision was when the private investigator presented even more evidence and more executives were informed of the situation. Beech-Nut could have recalled the product at this point and publically apologized. Instead, the company once again decided to take a “rights” approach and further concealed the fraudulent product. Lastly, the company could have at least participated in the recall as a final chance to save the face of the company. Instead, the managers frantically dumped the product in other countries furthering their bad decision-making. In all three decisions the managers could have thought they were applying a justice principle as well, also known as the “fairness principle”. They may have thought they were doing what was fair to consumers, offering a cheap product that, although misleading, doesn’t harm their