商业伦理学课件第5章Product liabilities.ppt

Business Ethics Lecture 5: Product liabilities (1) Tuesday, Sept. 30 2014 Outline Product safety Commercial general liability Negligence vs. ignorance Strict liability: pros cons Sales and advertising Exploitation manipulation Conspicuous consumption Price discrimination “过期肉”风波后遗症：上海福喜裁员逾70% 从7月21日至今的两个月，福喜集团在中国市场遭遇到“灾难性”的打击。7月23日，百胜餐饮集团宣布与福喜公司断绝合作，全面停止向中国福喜(包括上海福喜)的采购，同时保留对福喜集团采取一切法律行动的权利。随后，麦当劳将采购从上海福喜转移到河南、河北福喜，然而在遭遇巨大舆论压力下，麦当劳不惜以部分肉类、蔬菜产品较长时间断供，在7月28日也发布声明断绝与福喜中国所有工厂的关系，并且已经公布了新供货商的名单，此前麦当劳与福喜的合作关系长达22年之久。7月29日，汉堡王宣布全面停止向福喜中国采购任何产品。 在此次上海福喜大裁员的背后，福喜过往20多年的投入也面临着“打水漂”的风险。福喜集团官网披露的数据显示，其在中国20多年共计投入了7.5亿美元。 Question: Victim(受害者) vs. perpetrator(施害者)? Should Yum! Brands, Inc. (百胜餐饮集团，肯德基、必胜客等的母公司) and other chain restaurants be held responsible for the misdeeds of their supplier OSI China? Which facts do you need know? Which stakeholders are involved? Is there any way to prevent this incident from happening? Does this approach have any other ethical issues? ... Beyond the direct responsibility: The MacPherson vs. Buick case (1916) Donald MacPherson bought a new Buick and got injured soon in an accident. The accident was caused by a flawed (有缺陷的) tyre. The Buick company argued that they were not responsible for the accident because: They didnt produce the flawed tyre; a supplier did. They didnt sign the sales contract with MacPherson; a dealer did. Tort (民事侵权): Commercial general liability in the absence of explicit contract. Identification of liability: the negligence (疏忽) principle In 1992, an 70-year-old woman got seriously injured when a cup of coffee she bought from at a McDonalds Drive spilled. The coffee spilled because she tried to unlid (揭开盖子) the cup which was held between her two legs when driving away. McDonalds was fined 2.86 million dollars, 0.16 million for personal injury compensation (人身伤害赔偿) and 2.7 million for punitive damage (惩罚性赔偿). The verdict (判决) was rendered based on the following reasons: McDonalds should have controlled the temper