“REWORD THIS”     Stakeholders There are four distinct parties…

GeneralPartridge1775 “REWORD THIS”     Stakeholders There are four distinct parties…”REWORD THIS”  StakeholdersThere are four distinct parties that may potentially be affected by George’s decision, regardless of which option he chooses. Firstly, there is George himself – he is the character that is positioned at this ethical crossroads, and the scenario is built around him being the only one capable of making this decision. The absence of a manger gives him a degree of operational autonomy, which suggests an equal degree of liability for his decisions. Among the potential costs to him removing the filters are his perceived sense of personal integrity, the knowledge thathe contributed to hundreds of people consuming a tainted product, and, in the case of disciplinary action being dispensed, job security. Should he take the high road and report his findings to management, he will likely be ostracized by his fellow team members, dismantling the casual vibe that defines the night shift.Second is the rest of the night shift, which is comprised of six crew members of the same company rank, informally led by one senior crew member named Paul. Their stake is affected by the possibility of the tainted product being discovered and disciplinary action being dispensed by upper management. Paul may be especially impacted, considering his unofficial status as recordkeeper and production leader. It was made clear that these crew members are part of a labor union, which may or may not mitigate any potential disciplinary actions. Paling in comparison to the prospect of losing their jobs is the inconvenience that would come with having to halt production for the evening. This would extend their current shift by an unknown length of time. However, it would most likely reflect well on them, as the contamination is not their fault and they practiced diligence by reported their findings to management.Third is the Eastern Dairy company, who bears the ultimate brunt of liability for the product it puts out. They could not only be subject to legal action but could suffer a significant loss of business should this incident come into the public eye, (although the variables that would contribute to the likelihood of this are not provided in the scenario details). The costs of losing 500lb of mix, halting production for the length of time necessary to remove the tainted product, cleaning the equipment, and restarting production is not readily available. However, it is not unreasonable to assume that it would be a more welcome loss than those incurred by becoming known as “the company with maggots in their milkshakes.”Fourth are the consumers, the most important stakeholders. If George removes the filters, an untold amount, but likely hundreds of consumers will be drinking milkshakes containing ground up maggots. Whether or not the presence of the maggots will pose a health risk to consumers, the likelihood of the maggots being detectable, and the commonality of similar byproducts in the food they consume regularly, are factors not defined in this scenario. The fact that the mix contains foreign ingredients constitutes it being labeled as “tainted.” Logically, any other additive ought to invoke the same ethical dilemma. Maggots have a particularly unpalatable context, which strengthens the perceived impact of this decision on the stakeholders that much more.BusinessBusiness – Other