C206 Task 1 Ethical Lens Reflection and Dilemma Example

One Lot of Granola Bars and a Lens I Trust Too Much: An Ethical Lens Inventory Reflection and a Recall Dilemma Worked Through Three Theories

Student Name

School of Business, Western Governors University

C206: Ethical Leadership, Task 1

Course Instructor

Month Day, Year

One Lot of Granola Bars and a Lens I Trust Too Much: An Ethical Lens Inventory Reflection and a Recall Dilemma Worked Through Three Theories

My Ethical Lens Inventory Results

The Ethical Lens Inventory asks a series of paired choices and places the results on two tensions: between rationality, reasoning from principles, and sensibility, reasoning from empathy and the particular situation; and between autonomy, the freedom and responsibility of the individual, and equality, the fairness owed to everyone in a community (EthicsGame, n.d.). My results placed me closer to sensibility than to rationality, and slightly closer to equality than to autonomy, which put my ethical home in the Reputation lens, the lens concerned with character and with acting as a person of virtue would act. My secondary preference was the Relationships lens, which is concerned with fair processes and the treatment of everyone affected.

The results fit how I work. As an operations manager at a regional distribution company, I tend to ask what a good manager would do rather than what a rule requires, and I pay close attention to how decisions will land with the people on my team. When I had to choose last year between two supervisors for a promotion, I focused less on their metrics than on which one the team trusted, and I was comfortable defending that judgment even though the other candidate had better numbers.

My Blind Spot and How I Will Guard Against It

The risk in my lens is that trusting my own sense of good character can become self-justifying. If I believe I am acting as a good person would, I may not test my decision against principles or results that would show me it is wrong. In the promotion decision, I later realized I had given little weight to the data showing that the other supervisor's shift had half the safety incidents; I had judged character by likability. My plan is to use a simple check on any significant decision: write down the principle I would be willing to see applied to everyone and the measurable result I expect, and ask a colleague who reasons differently to challenge both. That forces the rationality and results thinking my lens underweights.

The Dilemma

Hearthstone Foods, a composite regional snack company, produces granola bars on a line shared with a peanut-free product. On a Thursday afternoon, quality assurance learns that a supplier's allergen cleaning record for a batch of oats is incomplete. Testing of retained samples from the lot of 42,000 bars made with those oats is negative for peanut protein in all 30 samples tested, but the test cannot rule out low-level contamination in untested bars. The bars are labeled peanut-free and are popular with parents of children with peanut allergies. A voluntary recall would cost an estimated $310,000, damage a major retail relationship during a promotion and attract news coverage. Not recalling risks a serious allergic reaction in a child if contamination exists. As the plant's general manager, I must recommend one of three options to the chief executive: a full voluntary recall, a targeted withdrawal from retailers without a public notice, or no action beyond additional testing.

Utilitarian Analysis

Utilitarianism judges an action by its consequences, asking which option produces the greatest overall good for everyone affected (Mill, 1863/2001). The expected harm of doing nothing depends on the probability of contamination multiplied by the severity of harm. The testing suggests the probability is low, but the harm, anaphylaxis in a child, is severe and possibly fatal, and the bars are bought specifically by families for whom that harm is most likely. The costs of a recall are financial and reputational, and they fall on a company that can absorb them. A careful utilitarian calculation therefore favors the recall or at least the withdrawal: a small chance of catastrophic harm to many vulnerable consumers outweighs a large but recoverable financial loss. A quiet withdrawal reduces cost but leaves bars already bought in homes, so it prevents less harm than a public recall.

Kantian Analysis

Kant's ethics asks whether the rule behind an action could hold for everyone and whether they treat people as ends in themselves rather than merely as means (Kant, 1785/2012). The principle behind doing nothing, that a company may keep selling a product labeled as safe for allergic children when it cannot confirm that claim, could not be universalized without destroying the trust that makes allergen labels meaningful. It also treats families as means to protect the company's revenue, since they are relying on the label to make a safety decision. A targeted withdrawal without public notice fails the same test for the bars already sold, because it withholds from those families the information they need. Only the public recall respects consumers as people entitled to decide for themselves with accurate information.

Virtue Ethics Analysis

Virtue ethics asks what a person of good character, acting with practical wisdom, would do in the situation (Aristotle, 2009). Honesty, courage and care are the virtues at stake. A manager of good character would not hide behind negative test results that do not answer the question, and would have the courage to recommend a costly action to a chief executive and a retailer who will not welcome it. Care for the families who trust the label points the same way. Practical wisdom also shapes how the recall is carried out: communicating clearly and without panic, explaining that the risk is uncertain, and fixing the supplier control that caused the problem.

Comparing the Theories and My Decision

The three theories reach the same conclusion by different routes. Utilitarianism favors the recall because the expected harm of severe reactions outweighs the financial cost; Kantian ethics requires it because consumers are relying on a claim the company cannot verify; virtue ethics calls for it because honesty and courage demand it. They differ on the withdrawal option: a utilitarian might accept it if the bars already sold were few, while Kantian and virtue ethics reject it because it withholds the truth from people who need it.

I would recommend a full voluntary recall with a public notice, a direct message to retailers explaining the reason, a free replacement offer for consumers and an immediate audit of the supplier's allergen controls. The decision costs the company money and a difficult conversation with a major customer. It is still right, because it protects children who may be at risk and keeps the promise the label makes. Checking the decision against my blind spot, I tested it against a principle I would apply to every company and against the measurable result, the chance of a severe reaction, and both confirm it. This time my sense of what a good manager would do and the harder analysis point the same way.

References

Aristotle. (2009). The Nicomachean ethics (D. Ross, Trans.; L. Brown, Ed.). Oxford University Press.

EthicsGame. (n.d.). Understanding the ethical lens inventory. https://faculty.ethicsgame.com/resource/28/ELI_Understanding.pdf

Kant, I. (2012). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (M. Gregor & J. Timmermann, Trans.; Rev. ed.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1785)

Mill, J. S. (2001). Utilitarianism (G. Sher, Ed.; 2nd ed.). Hackett. (Original work published 1863)