Malaprop

     Given the situation, I clearly understand the dilemma that Marjorie Malaprop is facing. Below is an overview of the dilemma:

First of all, should Marjorie throw away all the chocolates or give it to the homeless. In that case the company makes no profit at all but the action of giving something that is not good to others is clearly unethical. Second off all, should I send all the chocolate stocks to a ghetto store and make money out of those poor people by selling them something that is clearly not good.

     In that very complex situation, I would firstly consult the company code of ethics for formal guidance and analyze the pros and cons of each decision: whether the chocolate boxes should be taken to the dump or whether to give them away to the Salvation Army or give them to a store located in the ghetto to get some profit out of the them even if they are infested with insects. Secondly, I would evaluate which decision goes with my own moral beliefs and without any doubt I would have chosen an arrangement to have all the chocolate boxes taken to the dump. By all this being said, I personally strongly believe that giving away or even selling merchandises that you know are infested with insects and perhaps dangerous to the health of the less fortunate is unethical and could have serious impacts on the community as a whole, not to mention what customers and the press would think about the company if the chocolates were to create some sort of illness. This action would surely give the company a bad outlook and reputation and hurt their profits more than just the $12,000 of chocolate loss.

      Furthermore, several important stakeholders would be affected by the decision of giving them to the Salvation Army, as well as selling them for cheap in a store located in the ghetto. Below is how these two unethical decisions would affect each and every one of them.

• The community from which the business draws its resources: The company knows that it is bad to sell insects infested chocolates to the poor but do it anyway in order for them not to lose money. If those chocolates were to have dangerous impacts on the consumer’s health, the whole community would be against the company for selling and giving away merchandises that they knew were infested.
• Director and employees: If the truth about why those luxurious chocolates were given away or were selling for so cheap in the store located in the ghetto, the press could go viral and that scandal could affect the company a whole. Both the director and the employees could lose their jobs if the company has a bad reputation and start losing customers.
• The suppliers: Many suppliers will not agree to do business with a company that don’t act ethically and will do anything in their power to not lose the $12,000 worth of chocolates.
• Owner(s): The owner(s) of the company could face serious charges if the complaints are very serious.
• Customers: Customers usually really value the integrity and ethical value of companies. If they know the company in question doesn’t act ethically, chances are they will no longer do business with them.
• Creditors: New businesses will not want to work with them and bring them new contracts by fear of being involved in an unethical situation.

       Moreover, other reasonable alternatives could be considered in lieu of dumping all the chocolates, giving them away to the Salvation Army and selling them to less fortunate people in the ghetto. Below are two alternatives: