Nestlé PetCare Purina Company: Lawsuit on Beneful Dry Kibble (2015)

Nestlé Purina PetCare Company Headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri

Controversy: Nestlé Purina PetCare Company (Nestlé Purina) manufactures and distributes food product for cats and dogs. It operates as a subsidiary of Nestlé S.A. , which is a food and beverage company that was founded in 1866 and is headquartered in Vevey Switzerland. The current C.E.O. of the company is Ulf Mark Schneider. It operates in more than 70 companies through Europe, Americas, Asia Oceania and sub-Saharan Africa. Its products ranges from baby food, coffee, frozen food to dog food. 

Advertisement four months after

outbreak of lawsuits.

In year 2015, Nestlé PetCare Purina Company was faced with multiple lawsuits on their dog food product, the Beneful Series Dry Kibble. The dry kibble variations named in the suit include Purina Beneful Healthy Weight, Purina Beneful Original, Purina Beneful Incredibites, and Purina Beneful Healthy Growth For Puppies, Purina Beneful Healthy Smile, Purina Beneful Healthy Fiesta, Purina Beneful Healthy Radiance, and Purina Beneful Playful Life. Within these lawsuits from states including California, Massachusetts, Missouri and more, the common allegations was that Beneful was manufactured with harmful toxins like propylene glycol and mycotoxin that caused illness and/or death. In addition to the lawsuits, more than 3000 pet owners had complained through the safety reports of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and ConsumerAffairs.com about their dogs getting sick after switching solely to Beneful. The most recent death reported was today, April 5, 2018. The dogs that were sick shared symptoms of kidney failure, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach related internal bleeding, weight loss and liver malfunction. Even though this chemical was listed as a safe substance by the FDA, there are research that have shown positive and negative effects of these chemicals. Because the effect of sickness happened after the pets solely consumed Purina, for 3000 times, as a same pattern of sickness, it is highly likely that Purina does have dangerous substances in their dog food. Moreover, on April 21, 2016, the FDA published a report after finding overdosage of cyanuric acid and melamine in six samples of Beneful Series Dry Kibble. However, the only response from Nestlé Purina PetCare Company was an arrogant short statement, saying "Vets know pets get sick for many reasons and the food they eat is often not the root cause".


Individualism: This ethical framework argues that “business actions should maximize profits or the owners of a business, but do so within the law”. Nestlé Purina was unethical because it violated two rules and regulations while attempting to maximize profits. According to the FDA report, six samples of the Beneful Series Dry Kibble had cyanuric acid and melamine ‘above the allowable level’. According to the president of TruthAboutPetFood.com, these were “the two deadliest adulterants in the history of pet food”. Also, the report also stated that the samples collected “contained ethoxyquin; 
[and it] was not indicated on the product labeling”. This violates another tule because the Food Safety and Modernization Act (FSMA) required that the full ingredient list to be labeled on food packages but Nestlé Purina did not follow this rule.

A dog consuming dry kibble of the Beneful series.

Stakeholders and Utilitarianism: The stakeholders involved in this case include the dogs from more than 3000 households that have suffered from illness after consuming Beneful. Utilitarianism states that the main purpose of a company is to “maximize happiness in the long run”. However, in this case, happiness is clearly taken away because the dogs that were originally healthy went through pain after eating Beneful. Another stakeholder of this case is the pet owners of these dogs. They had their happiness taken away when their pets, which they treasure as part of the family, suffered illness and/or passed away. These pet owners had to give up their happiness emotionally in order to grief for their pets and financially in order to provide the best medical treatment for their pets. The third stakeholder in this case was the community of pet owners who were still feeding their pets Beneful. Their happiness was taken away because they would become concern of their pet’s health when the news broke out. The fourth stakeholder will be Nestlé Purina's employees and shareholders because the sales of the company was affected, and this put the company's asset and liability at risk, which in turn affects the management of the company. In this situation, Nestlé Purina's happiness was violated because of the loss of company stability. 

A picture on their website stating their slogan: "Your Pet, Our Passion".

Kantianism: Kantianism states that people should be honest and not interfere a rationale of another rational being. Kantianism also states that people should treat another rational being as a means to their end. The company claimed on its website that it maintained “a strict code of standards for buying, storing and processing ingredients used in [their] pet foods”. Kantianism advocates for “autonomy of individuals, honesty and freedom” would say this case was ethically impermissible. Nestlé Purina declared that their dry kibble had safe ingredients when in fact it contained substances that caused tragedy on the dogs’ lives. Moreover, Nestlé Purina also exploited their customers by continuing to deny the responsibility of mistakes in products. This helped protect their reputation so that they could continue earning profit from their customers. However, Kantianism would say this is not ethical because, based on the formula of humanity, Nestlé Purina used their customers as means to their ends. 

An example of the Beneful series dry kibble:

Purina Beneful Healthy Weight

Virtue Theory: Justice, prudence, intelligence and honesty are a few of the many virtues that help business people to flourish within the society. In the perspective of Virtue Theory, Nestlé Purina was not ethically permissible. This is because they did not act in according to prudence when they responded with a commercial where employees who made Beneful Series Dry Kibble were feeding it to their dogs, demonstrating confidence in their products. Even though four months later, the Beneful series might have been safe to consume again, this did not directly address the stakeholders' loss. Rather, the company decided to continue to promote their product to gain profit. This caused a feeling of injustice within concerned customers and showed how the company did not act intelligently when a controversy arose. They also were not intelligent in fulfilling the purpose that they company set for themselves. With the slogan of "Your Pet, Our Passion”, Nestlé Purina did not do what it promised the public with its products. In addition, the dry kibble did not fulfill its purposes of nourishing the health of the pets, as stated on the label on the packet. Also, lying to their customers about the ingredients violates the honesty virtue. Therefore, Nestlé Purina failed to be ethical in the perspective of Virtue Theory.
References:

Carey, Gillam. “California dog owner alleges Purina Beneful pet food can kill.” Reuters, 25 Feb. 2015, www.reuters.com/article/usa-purina-lawsuit/california-dog-owner-alleges-purina-beneful-pet-food-can-kill-idUSL1N0VZ1LL20150225. Accessed 4 Mar. 2018.

“Company Overview of Nestle Purina PetCare Company.” Bloomberg,www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=33452.Accessed 3 Mar. 2018.

“Dog Owners Alarmed at Beneful Lawsuit as Purina Denies Claims.” NBC News. 8 Mar. 2015. www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dog-owners-alarmed-beneful-lawsuit-purina-denies-claims-n316856. Accessed 3 Mar. 2018.

Laine, Samantha. Purina lawsuit: Does one of its products cause pets to become ill? The Christian Science Monitor, 24 Feb. 2015, www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0225/Purina-lawsuit-Does-one-of-its-products-cause-pets-to-become-ill. Accessed 4 Mar. 2018.

“Lawsuit Claims Purina’s Beneful is Poisoning, Killing Dogs.” NBC News. 24 Feb. 2015,www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lawsuit-claims-purinas-beneful-poisoning-killing-dogs-n312176. Accessed 4 Mar. 2018.

“Lawsuit Claims Purina Beneful Pet Food Sickens Kills Dogs.” CBS News, 25 Feb. 2015,www.cbsnews.com/news/lawsuit-claims-purina-beneful-pet-food-sickens-kills-dogs. Accessed 4 Mar. 2018.

Lupkin, Sydney. “Lawsuit Claims Beneful Dog Food Kills Pets”, ABC News, 24 Feb.2015.

Salazar, Heather. “The Business Ethics Case Manual.” n.d.  Silva, Daniella. “Purina Backs Beneful Dog Food as Lawsuit Expands Allegations.” NBC News, 14 Jun. 2015, www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/purina-backs-beneful-lawsuit-expands-allegations-n375101. Accessed 4 Mar. 2018.

Thixton, Susan. “FDA Releases Concerning Information About Beneful.” Truth About Pet Food. http://truthaboutpetfood.com/fda-releases-concerning-information-about-beneful. Accessed 4 Mar. 2018.'

BudLight: #UpForWhatever Ad Controversy (2015)

Controversy

Bud Light's Controversial Ad Label

Bud Light launched an “Up for Whatever” ad campaign in 2013 which included 140 different slogans canvased on Bud Light labels. The company’s vision for the campaign was to invoke the idea that Bud Light should be associated with carefree and spontaneous nights out or in with friends, but one of their slogans invoked quite a different image. A slogan saying “The Perfect Beer For Removing ‘No’ From Your Vocabulary For The Night. #UpForWhatever” outraged the majority of the brand’s consumers. Many consumers felt that the slogan promoted rape culture and encouraged non-consent. Consumers took to social media and demanded the slogan be removed from circulation immediately which negatively impacted the company. Along with an influx of bad publicity, the company’s brand perception rating took a hit. The “buzz” score—the official measure of daily brand perception—fell from a 6 prior to the incident to a 0 after the slogan went public.

        The company responded to the incident with this: “It’s clear that this message missed the mark, and we regret it. We would never condone disrespectful or irresponsible behavior.” This statement, by Alexander Lambrecht—VP of the company, addressed the issue and was followed by a promise to stop producing the label immediately and to halt circulation of bottles sporting the controversial slogan. Further, it seems the company’s marketing department is ignorant of the suggestive and offensive nature of many of their advertising efforts. Barely a month before the latest “Up for Whatever” controversy, the company was forced to retract yet another offensive tweet associated with the ad campaign. The tweet read: “On #StPatricksDay, you can pinch people who don’t wear green. You can also pinch people who aren’t #UpForWhatever.” The ad campaign seems to leave the company susceptible to a host of controversies surrounding their marketing efforts under such an inherently suggestive theme: up for whatever.

Ad for BudLight's 2015 Campaign

Stakeholders

            The stakeholders involved and affected by this scandal are many, considering the span of the customer base Bud Light has as a mainstream alcoholic beverage company. Many of the consumers of Bud Light have been offended and disappointed by the marketing stunt, and therefore have been affected by the scandal. Bars who may have purchased the controversial bottles likely experienced backlash from their own subsequent customers as the backlash from social media trended. Further, the company itself was affected by their own decision to market a possibly offensive and deliberately misleading ad which they knew had the possibility of offending their consumers. The company and its board members lost the respect of many and the business ultimately made a poor decision that negatively affected millions, which will go on to hurt sales and profits as well as the shareholders of the company.

Individualism

            Individualism poses that ethically “business actions should maximize profits for the owners of a business, but do so within the law,” (Salazar, 17). Considering poor advertising decisions are not a violation of the law, this marketing mishap would technically be considered ethical as it did not break the law. Ultimately, the uproar and attention the slogan caught brought the company more attention but many consumers chose to boycott the company and its products until the slogan was removed, so it failed to maximize profit. Over time, a poor brand perception can lead to significant decreases in sales and ultimate demise for a company if the situation is not rectified. BudLight’s “buzz” score decreased dramatically in the aftermath of the ad. Positive brand perception is integral to successful businesses and to profit maximization. The ad negatively impacted profits, but luckily for the company not for long. Simply put, the decision of Bud Light to publish the offensive slogan led consumers to have a negative consumer brand perception of the company which failed to maximize profit in any way, which would not be supported under the Individualistic ethics principle.

Utilitarianism

"The Perfect Beer For Stepping Outside For Some Old
School Fun"--one of the campaign's tamer slogans. 

Utilitarianism suggests ethical guidelines that encourage decisions which “maximize the happiness in the long run for all conscious beings that are affected by the business action,” (Salazar, 17). Bud Light failed to make a decision which made any party concerned with the company happy in the long run. When the company published the slogan, they only attracted negative attention from offended consumers and received public backlash directed at the company’s marketing team, which did not bring happiness to any party involved. Further, the company—during the time of the ad campaign—was spearheading its efforts to target more women consumers. This controversial ad backtracked any progress they might have made by directly offending the exact consumers they were attempting to target: women. Many consumers took a pledge to boycott BudLight until they addressed and fixed the ad mishap, which negatively affected business and overall happiness.

Kantianism

            Kantianism revolves around the ideal that a company should “always act in ways that respect and honor individuals and their choices. Don’t lie, cheat, manipulate, or harm others to get your way,” (Salazar, 17). Bud Light violated two out of the four specifically indicated measures to not violate by advertising their controversial slogan. The company, in a way, harmed consumers who have been affected by rape and the popularization of rape culture by suggesting an alcoholic beverage could be the key to such encounters. Such consumers were deeply offended and suffered emotional damage from the insensitive slogan. They additionally manipulated their consumers by using a slogan that suggested the beer had the power to decrease rejection and increase willingness in women. By two counts, Bud Light’s ad campaign would be considered unethical to a Kantian. Further, the ad itself failed to respect and honor individuals and their choices. By literally promising that BudLight will remove no from your vocabulary, the company removed the right to choice
. The ad did not honor individuals in that it encouraged its consumers to pursue things, and women, who would usually—other than under the influence of BudLight—reject them. It set its consumers up to take unnecessary risks and to potentially put others at harm, which is unethical.

Virtue Theory
           Virtue Theorists suggest that behavior is ethical when a business “acts so as to embody a variety of virtuous or good character traits and so as to avoid vicious or bad character traits,” (Salazar, 17). Virtue Theory involves four main virtues: honesty, courage, temperance, and justice. As for Honesty, Bud Light did not intentionally publish their slogan with the knowledge that it would be offensive, but as soon as they received news of the backlash it ignited, they rushed to apologize and agreed to remove the slogan. The company was Courageous when they owned up to the mistake and agreed that they understood where the slogan had missed the mark with consumers. As for Temperance, the company displayed unreasonable expectations and desires when they thought their ad campaign would be perceived agreeably by all consumers. The Justice in this case was fulfilled in that the company agreed to remove the slogans and apologized for their mistake. Virtue Theory also insists business decisions avoid vicious or bad character traits that will be associated with the company. The ad BudLight published associated the company with those w
ho support nonconsent and who promote rape culture. These are terrible and offensive traits for a company to have, and the ad directly aligned BudLight with such ideals. If such traits are sure to be negatively perceived when associated with an individual, the effect is amplified when they are associated with such a big company as BudLight. Overall, Virtue Theorists would concur that BudLight made a very unethical decision. 

   

Post-uproar, the company issued a public apology on Twitter. 

Sources:

https://kodiak.wne.edu/d2l/le/content/48463/viewContent/653872/View?ou=48463

http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/bud-light-s-label-gafe-lasting-damage/298378/

http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/28/media/bud-light-bottle-slogan-uproar/index.html?iid=EL

http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/30/investing/budweiser-bud-light-sales-anheuser-busch-inbev/index.html

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/245608

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/business/bud-light-withdraws-slogan-after-it-draws-ire-online.html?_r=0

Is GameStop ripping off it's Customers? (2010)

By Alexis Javier-Gomera

Controversy

Power to the Player

           GameStop might seem like the kind of store that all players would love. Has the newest game, pre-order bonuses, is always well informed so it can answer any questions you might have, as all the accessories when it comes to games. Publishing a magazine by the name of Game Informer. Everything that they did was for the customers and the player, proof of their slogan 'Power to the Player'. But does that mean that they care for their customers? Do they really care about them in the first place? While GameStop does have genuine care for their customers and the employees themselves doesn't try to cheat out the customers. There is no denying the fact that there are some "deals" that GameStop has that would be better if they didn't exist at all. Some of the few example would be the trade deal, where you would bring in any number of games and/or console and can trade it for real cash or store credit. With this you can trade in your old games that you either don't want or got bored of it, even those games that you bought by mistake, and get back money from it. It can sound good on paper but that only last until you trade. For one, you get little amount of money back. You could have bought a new console that just came out recently (like the Nintendo Switch) to trade and you get back only 20-30% of the total price that you paid for it. So far nothing has been done about this and in fact seem like GameStop knows what it's doing.
Stakeholders
           Stakeholders are the party that are involved in the transaction. In this case, it would be the customers, which are the gamers or family members of said gamers, and the employees. None of the party are at fault about this. The employees are just doing their job, they have no say on how the deals goes and only says what they were told to say. The customers, however, are obviously not happy in the less bit about almost getting cheated on by the company that they believe tried to satisfy them to the fullest. Or at least that would be the case if the customers noticed how they are getting ripped off. As it stands, they don't know that they are selling their game, console, or accessories at a lower price than what they should rightfully get if their items are in mint condition.

Individualism
           Individualism is the habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant as well as the profit that is made in the process. This was not in favor of the consumers and were instead in favor of GameStop. GameStop gained more money by giving away as little as possible back to the customers. Because they were getting the games and consoles back, they could easily refurbish it and getting it working as good as new. Sell it for a lower, but still high, price for the next person to buy it. Rinse, repeat and the executives of GameStop find themselves making more money than ever. In a way, it can almost be argued that GameStop did the trade deal so that they can get the game back and sell it again without having to buy the same copy too many times, and when a game becomes broken beyond repair then they throw it out and buy a new one to replace it.

Utilitarianism
          Utilitarianism is the doctrine where any action is made to make the majority happy. And it does do that but only when it doesn't come down to any return deals that they make. Selling games and console, telling about the latest release and information, and being nice in general is the right way on doing things, which was what brought satisfaction to the customers. The trading, however, doesn't help the company when it does get noticed by the customers. Customers can easily get angry when it comes to them buying stuff as well as making deals with the employee and it doesn’t go their way. If they don't believe they are getting the best, like any other customers everywhere else, they'll end up complaining and the employee will get exasperated and no one would win.

Kantianism
          Kantianism states that if something is harming someone or something then it is unethical and not rational in the least. This doesn't exactly harm anyone physically. In the end, you do get money back from a game and/or console that you didn't want anymore and wanted to get rid of it. It's mostly the principal of things. Given the game cost a good amount of money but then you soon found out that you didn't like it so you're returning it, only to find that you don't even get half of your money back for it. For games that you had for years is understandable since you had it for a long time and it got old as well, but for a game that you only had for a week or so and had more than enough? That’s the sort of thing that is not rational as the company is ripping people with the deal that sounds good in general when it actuality it can be in a way, robbery.

So sad even the Xbox is crying

Virtue Theory
           Virtue Theory is where if something is functioning the way it should, then it is happy. GameStop was technically being honest about their deals and about the trade function. That doesn't mean that everyone that walked out of the store were happy. GameStop managers gains more by the deal than the customers and that's very unethical. The employees don’t have any say in how much they can give back to the customers as everything is done by the computer. It can't be considered ethical of the employees since they let it happen for who knows how long. So, in all this, it can be considered unethical since the manager doesn't change how the trade system works. The same couldn’t be said about the employees since they don’t like the trade one bit.

Justification Ethics Evaluation
          The actions of both the manager of GameStop and the employees aren't that justified as neither tried to work in a way that can leave the customers satisfied. While this is a small thing compared to everything else that GameStop does for the gamers. You would think that a company that has the slogan 'Power to the player' would do everything they can to give the best of the best for the customers, and that includes the trade system. The fact that this has been going for a long as anyone can remember, there's no way the manager hasn't noticed the unfairness that this was doing. Especially with how the customers has social media to recount their tales about GameStop. The words would have gone to the manager eventually, so the fact that nothing is changing just shows how little he cares.

References

Does GameStop try to rip you off? (n.d.). Retrieved from GameSpot: https://www.gamespot.com/forums/offtopic-discussion-314159273/does-gamestop-try-to-rip-you-off-26792485/

Gaudiosi, J. (2012 , April 16). An Employee Believes GameStop's Used Game Racket Would Be Illegal If Government-Regulated. Retrieved from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/04/16/an-employee-believes-gamestops-used-game-racket-would-be-illegal-if-government-regulated/#51d6a1d64e2c

Mueller, J. (2014, August 6). Gamestop ripping customers off now more than ever. Retrieved from TechnologyTell: http://www.technologytell.com/gaming/133161/gamestop-ripping-customers-now-ever/

St. Louis Cardinals: Hacking of the Houston Astros Database (2013)

The Case

     The St. Louis Cardinals are a Major League Baseball team that play in the National League.  The team has a long and successful history stretching back to the 19th century with a total of 13 division titles, 19 National League pennants, and 11 World Series titles.  The Houston Astros are also a Major League Baseball team that plays in the American League.  A relatively new team to the MLB, they have six division titles and one National League pennant.  For most of their tenure in the MLB, they played in the National League along with the Cardinals but have just recently moved to the American League in 2013.  Right around this time, in June of 2014, the Houston Astros reported a data breach of servers which resulted in a leak of months of internal trade talks.  The leak was first reported by the Astros' General Manager Jeff Luhnow, a former Cardinal's employee.  Luhnow started in St. Louis as the vice president of baseball development and had worked his way up to the head of scouting and player development for the Cardinals organization.  Luhnow was critical in getting players that helped win the Cardinals a World Series in 2011 and after that season the Astros wanted him for their GM position taking several Cardinals employees with him.  An official F.B.I investigation was started in wake of the 2014 breach.  By 2015 it was announced that the Cardinals were being looked into.  The F.B.I was investigating the St. Louis Cardinals organization to see if current employees were involved the hack.  What they found was that Cardinals officials hacked the database housing all the player information for the Houston Astros.  Cardinals chairman Bill

Chris Correa:  Former Scouting Director for the Cardinals

DeWitt issued a statement saying the Cardinals had nothing to do with the breach and it was carried out by a group of rogue individuals.  In the end, only one employee was found at fault, Chris Correa, the the scouting director for the Cardinals.
     Correa was able to get into the database by guessing a similar password that was used by a former Cardinals employee that now works for the Astros.  It is still unclear at this time who's password Correa used but he may have had access to the database after the 2011 season, when Luhnow left for the Astros job.  Correa had access to their passwords because when these employees left they had to turn in their team-issued laptops.  These laptops were returned at the time to Correa who was in charge of wiping them for re-purposing.  The former employees had to leave their passwords so Correa could get in.  Correa was promptly fired and soon after placed in custody.  Authorities say Correa, "hacked the email system and was able to view 118 pages of confidential information, including notes of trade discussions, player evaluations and a 2014 team draft board that had not yet been completed." (ESPN, 2016)  Correa accessed the Astros database five times from 2013 to 2014 and improperly downloaded several files but may have accessed the database more than five times.  In January of 2016 Correa plead guilty to five counts of unauthorized access of a protected computer.  In July of 2016 he was sentenced to 46 months in prison and fined $280,000.  He had originally faced five years for each individual charge and began serving his time 6 weeks from sentencing.  Once the trial had concluded, Rob Manfred, commissioner of Major League Baseball, handed down a punishment.  The Cardinals would be fined 2 million dollars, the maximum penalty, and would lose their top two draft picks in the next draft.  Luck for the Cardinals their first round pick had been forfeited when they signed free agent Dexter Fowler so the Astros are left with two picks from the Cardinals outside of the first round of the MLB draft.
Stakeholders
     Stakeholders are individuals that have an interest or concern in this case.  These individuals may be stakeholders as they are a part of a group that has in interest in the case.  The stakeholders in this case are the front offices of both baseball organizations, baseball fans, sports reporters covering the scandal, Chris Correa, Jeff Luhnow and other former Cardinals now Astros staff, Bill DeWitt, and Jim Crane, owner of the Astros.  Both front offices are going to be affected by this scandal as it was committed by someone in the front office of the Cardinals.  Policy may change in order to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.  The Astros front office may increase security while the Cardinals may monitor their employees better.  Fans of baseball in general and fans of both teams are going to be effected because the integrity of player acquisition has now been questioned.  Who's to say this hasn't happened before?  It is important for the baseball fan to pay attention to this kind of scandal as it creates healthy skepticism in the practices their own team implements in keeping player data secure and how their own team finds out information on potential players.  Reporters have a stake in this case because it is a part of their job to break sports news to the public.  A scandal like this deserves to be shown to the public in fair, unbiased news articles so fans can formulate opinions on what happened.  It is important these reporters take an interest in this case so they can do their jobs properly and inform sports fans of what is going on.  Chris Correa has a stake in the case because he is the one who committed the crime of hacking.  He is the reason this paper can be written because he brought the Cardinals ethics into question.  Jeff Luhnow would have a stake because he is at the

Jeff Luhnow: General Manager of the Astros

center of this case.  Although according to the findings, Luhnow had nothing to do with the hacking, the databases were his creation.  He should be interested in their security and their accessibility.  He should also look into possibly changing his passwords.  Bill DeWitt has a stake as he owns the Cardinals and is responsible for how his employees conduct themselves at work.  The reputation of the Cardinals organization was tarnished by Correa so DeWitt has a stake in this case because it effects how his organization is seen.  Jim Crane is a stakeholder because his team had valuable player data stolen that resulted in missed opportunities to acquire players because the Cardinals beat them to it,  This cost his team money and success so following this case would be important for finding out how much this actually cost his team.
Individualism
     Friedman's individualism, which focuses more on business, describes individualism as profit being the only goal of a business.  This means that employees of a business are obligated to do whatever they can to help the business maximize profit within the parameters of the law.  From the individualist point of view, Correa was doing whatever he could to make the Cardinals better.  The Cardinals baseball team is technically a business that profits from the game of baseball.  Correa stole player information from the Astros in order to gain a competitive edge.  During the court hearing, federal prosecutors said, "the hacking cost the Astros about $1.7 million, taking into account how Correa used the Astros' data to draft players." (ESPN, 2016)  The Astros lost out on making 1.7 million from players the Cardinals took which means Chris Correa helped the Cardinals make 1.7 million dollars.  He helped the Cardinals profit in a big way and the players he drafted will continue to have an impact in the organization long after Correa gets out of prison.  Some individualist may say that what he did was ethical based on individualism.  The only problem is though, he acquired the data illegally.  He may have done whatever he could to help the company profit but he did so by stealing information.  What he did was most certainly helpful to the Cardinals but it was clearly illegal as he was fined 280,000 dollars and sentenced to 46 months in prison.  On top of this punishment, Major League Baseball fined the Cardinals 2 million dollars which essentially nullifies any monetary gains Correa helped them get as a result of his hacking.  From an individualist perspective, what Correa did is unethical because he may have helped the Cardinals maximize profit, he did so by illegal means.
Utilitarianism
From a utilitarian perspective, happiness and or pleasure are the only things that an individual values intrinsically.  Individuals should also spread happiness or pleasure wherever they can and do so impartially.  If happiness is to be valued, then there should be no difference between the happiness of one person and the happiness of another person from a moral perspective.  In terms of the case, Correa only tried to maximize his own happiness.  He did end up spreading happiness to the Cardinals organization because he “found” good players but that happiness was quickly negated after it came to light how he found those players.  He also impartially spread this happiness as he knew that when he did this, the Astros would be an afterthought to Correa.  He made himself happy because he was making the Cardinals happy but never took into account the happiness of the Astros.  Even the happiness he provided the Cardinals was short lived because after he got caught, the commissioner of the MLB fined the Cardinals 2 million dollars.  Correa spread happiness in a partial manner which violates a principle of utilitarianism.  He essentially weighted his happiness and the happiness of the Cardinals over everyone else’s because he worked for them and wanted to see them do well while also making himself seem like he was excelling at his job.  Based on the values of utilitarianism, what Correa did would be considered unethical.  He failed to maximize the happiness of more than just himself and when he did increase the happiness of the others, the Cardinals, he did so partially as he stole data and stealing is not known to make people or companies happy.

Kantianism

There are four basic principles of Kantianism.  The first, an individual must act rationally.  They
need to act consistently and not consider themselves exempt from the rules.  The second is an individual should be helping people make rational decisions.  The third is to respect people and their autonomy along with their needs and differences.  The fourth is that the individual should be motivated by Good Will.  They should want to do what is right just because it is the right thing to do.  A Kantian also believes that being rational is doing the right thing so there for being right is also rational.  In the case of Correa, he did not meet these requirements.  Correa considered himself exempt from the rules when he hacked the Astros database.  Perhaps he felt he would not be caught and it is clear he did not feel bound by laws against hacking as he accessed the database at least five times over a span of years.  He did not help anyone make a rational decision during this time.  The data he stole was used by the Cardinals to acquire players in order to better their team and although

the Cardinals did not know about it, Correa was still not in the right to share this information.  Therefore, he did not help the Cardinals make a rational decision as he did not specify where he got this information from.  The former Cardinals employees turned Astros employees trusted Correa with their work laptops and passwords when they left the Cardinals organization.  A password keeps your personal information safe from people you do not wish to view it.  Correa did not respect these employees or their privacy when he memorized one of the passwords and guessed the correct new one in order to gain access to the database that the Astros have.  Lastly, Correa was not motivated by Good Will when he made the decision to hack into that database.  He was motivated by the thought of a possible pay raise and prestige bump when he showed his bosses all this player information he “worked so hard to get.”  Correa did not want to do what was right and actually obtain player data the legal way by collecting it himself, he instead decided to steal it.  What he did was not right and is therefore irrational.  Based on Kantian ideals, this would make what Correa did unethical.

Virtue Theory

A virtue is a characteristic that allows for things to work properly.  In business, there are four major virtues.  These virtues are courage, honesty, temperance, and justice.  Courage is the risks an individual takes and their willingness to stand up for what is right.  Correa took a huge risk by hacking into the Astro’s database and stealing their information.  Although this does not mean he had courage.  Based on the doctrine of mean, Correa’s decision to do this was very far away from the mean of courage and was somewhere closer to one of the extremes.  It could be argued that Correa’s was rash as he really didn’t look at the big picture of what he was doing.  IT could also be considered cowardice because instead of doing what was right and difficult, he chose to steal player information and not work for it.  This ties into his lack of willingness to stand up for what is right.  What Correa did was not right and it can be clearly shown it wasn’t right as he is spending 46 months in prison.  Correa was clearly not willing to do what was right and chose rather to take an easier route in order to get player data.  This inevitably cost him his freedom.  Honesty is how truthful you are when talking to coworkers, customers, and other companies.  Correa was not honest with anyone.  Nobody really knew in the Cardinals organization where Correa was getting his player information from, they just knew he had it.  It took a federal investigation of his company in order for Correa to come clean and admit what he did.  He may have even continued on with the lie had he not done such a bad job trying to cover his tracks.  Temperance is having reasonable expectations and desires.  Correa never expected to be caught for what he was doing which can be clearly seen because of how frequently he viewed the Astro’s database.  It is unreasonable to expect that he would not get caught especially after it was announced that the database was breached and he still kept accessing it.  His desire to help the Cardinals succeed was also unreasonable because he was willing to do illegal things in order to help them.  This desire is too extreme if he is willing to break the law in order to help his company win more baseball games.  Lastly, justice is the hard work, good ideas, and fair practices of an employee.  Correa did not exhibit any kind of justice.  He cut corners by stealing player data from the Astros because he just so happened to guess a correct password.  This means he did not need to put in any hard work in order to get this information.  He did not abide by the law or the rules of baseball when he hacked into this database which means he did not show fair practices in his business.  By illegally requiring player information, he unfairly helped the Cardinals have a competitive advantage over other teams.  Based on virtue theory what Chris Correa did was unethical.

Justified Ethics Evaluation
     From my own ethical perspective, what Chris Correa did was unethical.  You don't even need the ethical theories to see that because what he did put himself in prison.  I find that Correa's lack of foresight to be especially unethical.  At some point when he was trying to guess the password for the Astro's database he had to have known what he was doing was wrong.  But he kept going until he eventually got in and continued to access the database.  He ended up tarnishing the reputation of the Cardinals by cheating and stealing which caused the Cardinals to receive penalties because of his wrongdoings.  Although the Cardinals are not totally spotless in this case.  They never thought to look into how Correa received his player data and how it specifically related to the Astros apparently never raised any red flags to them.  Seems kind of suspicious to me.  I believe that what Correa did was grossly unethical and I also believe that the lack of questioning by the Cardinals makes their handling of this situation unethical as well.

Sources 

Daniels, Tim. "St. Louis Cardinals Under FBI Investigation For Alleged Hack Of Astros System". Bleacher Report. N.p., 2015. Web. 31 Jan. 2017.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2497669-st-louis-cardinals-under-fbi-investigation-for-alleged-hack-of-astros-system 

Kepner, Tyler. "Cardinals To Suffer, But Former Executive Bears Brunt In Hacking Case". Nytimes.com. N.p., 2017. Web. 31 Jan. 2017.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/sports/mlb-st-louis-cardinals-hack-houston-astros.html 

Press, Associated. "Ex-Cards Exec Gets Prison Time For Astros Hack". ESPN.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 31 Jan. 2017.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/17101079/chris-correa-former-st-louis-cardinals-scouting-director-sentenced-jail-hacking-houston-astros 

Reiter, Ben. "Worse Than Deflategate: Why Cardinals' Hacking Is So Problematic". SI.com. N.p., 2015. Web. 31 Jan. 2017.

http://www.si.com/mlb/2015/06/16/astros-cardinals-fbi-hacking-ground-control 

Saxon, Mark. "Cardinals Get Off Light With Hacking Scandal Penalties". ESPN.com. N.p., 2017. Web. 31 Jan. 2017.

http://www.espn.com/blog/st-louis-cardinals/post/_/id/2828/cardinals-get-off-light-with-hacking-scandal-penalties 

     

         

TransCanada Corporation: Keystone XL Pipeline (2015)

TransCanada's logo

Controversy

TransCanada Corporation was founded in 1951 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The company deals with energy infrastructure based on natural gas and oil. The company operates 91,500 km of natural gas pipelines while owning 653 billion ft3 of natural gas storage facilities. TransCanada also operates 4,300 km of oil pipelines, which has already transported 1.4 billion barrels of oil, which is equivalent to 58.8 billion gallons. TransCanada also employes 7,178 people across the U.S. Canada and Mexico. TransCanada’s energy infrastructure supplies many energy requirements across North America. They supply 27% of natural gas used daily, they produce enough power (10,700 MW) to light more than 10 million homes, and transport about 20% of Western Canada’s oil production to refineries in the U.S. (8)Recently TransCanada has come under scrutiny with the 4th phase of the Keystone pipeline system, called the Keystone XL, the company is trying to build. TransCanada already operates 2,925 miles of crude oil pipeline that transports oil produced from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin to refineries in Texas and Illinois. The proposed Keystone XL pipeline would add 1,179 miles and 830,000 barrels a day to their infrastructure, taking a more direct route to a terminal in Steele City, Nebraska. Environmentalists are protesting the pipeline as it would increase greenhouse gas emissions, produce more frequent oil spills, and many see the construction of the pipeline as a battle for America's energy future. Farmers are also protesting the pipeline where their land would be taken and forced to have the pipeline cross their farms. The Keystone XL pipeline expansion was originally proposed in 2008 and Canada's National Energy Board accepted the proposal in 2010. Since the pipeline extends across the Canadian-U.S. border, it also must be approved by the President of the United States. In 2010 the Environmental Protection Agency released a statement saying that the draft of the environmental impact study for the pipeline was inadequate and narrow. The full report was released in 2011 and revealed the pipeline would pose no real environmental threat if modern environmental protection and safety measures are followed. The report did say the pipeline would pose a significant cultural impact on the region. (10) The State Department postponed making a decision on the pipeline in late 2011 to find alternative routes around the sensitive Sandhills region in Nebraska for the pipeline. “After first saying XL would not have significant adverse effects on the environment, it advised TransCanada to explore alternative routes in Nebraska because the Sandhills region is a fragile ecosystem.” (3) Finally in 2013 President Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline application as Congress passed a 60-day deadline on the President to make a decision. President Obama said the deadline prevented a complete assessment of the pipeline's impact. In early 2013, Mother Jones reported that key personnel involved in a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) released at the same time also preformed contract work for TransCanada, creating a conflict-of-interest in the environmental report. (1) The EPA rated the SEIS a 2; insufficient information. The EPA also wrote a letter written by the assistant administrator of the EPA in response to the State Department’s SEIS. The letter says the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline could increase greenhouse gas emissions if the price of oil rose above $65 a barrel. The SEIS states oil sands production produces 17% more pollution than conventional oil. So demand for oil sands by rail would fall if oil was below $65 a barrel. At the time oil was $51 a barrel. (5) Farmers living in Nebraska and Texas are also against the pipeline because of eminent domain. Eminent domain is a law in the U.S. which allows the government to seize private land with compensation in the interest of the public. The problem farmers are having is the pipeline isn’t in the interest of the public. The pipeline will only create ~30 permanent jobs and not realistically affect the economy. The government does not have a suitable reason for applying eminent domain to landowners on the Keystone XL route. Some farmers are also against where the oil comes from in the pipeline. “When I found out and saw pictures of the Tar Sand, I was like, oh, my gosh, that just looks like a horrific thing…” (2) The way oil is extracted in Alberta is by literally digging up the earth and extracting the oil from that. Oil companies in Alberta destroy millions of acres mining the oil this way. Farmers and landowners are trying to protect their land from the damage the pipeline could cause on property they own. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with the people who are hurt by the pipeline. In early 2015, Congress voted 62-36 and 270-152 in favor of a bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline and bypass presidential support. President Obama vetoed the bill and the Senate didn't have the 2/3 majority to override the veto (62-37). Now more recently, President Trump in 2017 approved the application of the Keystone XL pipeline. “In his latest moves to dismantle the legacy of his predecessor, Mr. Trump resurrected the Keystone XL pipeline that had stirred years of debate…” (6) President Obama rejected TransCanada’s proposal to stay in line with his climate change promises and President Trump thinks the pipeline will help create energy independence and a stronger economy.

An oil pipeline

Stakeholders

A stakeholder is a person or group of people who hold an interest in the actions of a company or business. The stakeholders involved in TransCanada's ethical problems with Keystone XL are the stockholders in TransCanada, people working the oil sands in Alberta, construction workers that would build the pipeline, people who own the land the pipeline would cross, and the U.S. government. Stockholders in TransCanada have an obvious interest in the case because TransCanada is building the pipeline to make a larger profit, which increases stock price, which benefits the stockholders. People working in the oil sands of Alberta are interested in this case because the pipeline would help increase the production of oil in the region, creating more jobs but also creating more pollution problems in the area. TransCanada will also need to hire roughly 28,000 temporary construction workers to build the pipeline. People living and owning land in the area of the pipeline have an interest in the case because of the reduction in quality of life the pipeline could bring and the use of eminent domain by the government to provide TransCanada with the land necessary to build the pipeline. The U.S. government has an interest in the case because they have to issue a permit for TransCanada to build the pipeline while using eminent domain to provide TransCanada with land.

Individualism

CEO of TransCanada Russell Girling

Individualism is a philosophical theory which gives importance to an individual's rights and desires. Individualism says everyone has a right to pursue their own interest and no one has a right to make other people’s choices about their pursuits. Libertarianism is very similar to Individualism but is applied to how the government interacts with its citizens. Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize winning economist, took Individualism and applied it to businesses. Friedman said a company’s sole purpose is to maximise profit for the owner or stockholders while operating inside the law. TransCanada, in this case, was trying to maximise profits for their stockholders, and was operating within the law. The pipeline would bring more profit to TransCanada, increasing the prices of their stock which increases the profit of the stockholders. TransCanada will profit even more than normal because the government will pay out the compensation for eminent domain usage instead of TransCanada. If an oil spill happens along the pipeline route however, TransCanada and therefore the stockholders may not profit due to public outrage and clean-up costs. While Keystone XL is already a hot topic, an oil spill from the pipeline would completely ruin TransCanada’s public image and their stocks would go down in price. But, considering all this, this case conforms to Milton Friedman’s idea of Individualism and is ethical. TransCanada is trying to obtain the largest profit they can, and the Keystone XL pipeline is not illegal. Individualism is narrow in its applications though, as it doesn’t take into account all the stakeholders affected by the company. 

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory based around the happiness of all involved in an action. Utilitarianism states the best action is one that maximizes utility. Utility is defined differently by different people, but generally is the well-being of sentient entities, like animals and people. Jeremy Bentham, the founder of Utilitarianism, describes utility as the sum of all pleasure and pain gained from an action, pleasure being positive and pain being negative. So, according to Utilitarianism, animals are a stakeholder in this case with pollution and the destruction of their home the main interest. TransCanada’s stockholders are happy because of the increased profits gained from the pipeline, but they represent a small portion of the stakeholders. Workers involved with oil production and construction of the pipeline are happy in this case with the increase in jobs and the growth of the economy around Alberta. The workers in Alberta and workers building the pipeline are a larger group than the stockholders, but still do not represent the majority of the stakeholders. The largest group of stakeholders are the people whose land is being taken by the government and the animals hurt by the pollution in Alberta and the pollution along the pipeline. The farmers and landowners are definitely not happy with their land being taken from them without a say by the government. And the animals affected by this pipeline are hurt when their homes will be destroyed and their lives threatened by construction of the pipeline and increased oil production in Alberta. Therefore, according to Utilitarianism, this case is not ethical. Utilitarianism is also flawed like Individualism. Utilitarianism only focuses on the end, and not the means. Slavery shouldn’t be used even if it is for a common good. 

Kantianism

Immanuel Kant was a german philosopher during the Enlightenment. Kant is considered a central figure in modern philosophy and developed an ethical theory based on actions rather than the results. Kantianism states the only good thing is goodwill; an action is only good if it follows moral laws. Actions must be rational and have good intentions. Actions cannot be in contrast to established moral laws and must benefit someone in someway. Individual freedoms and rights must also be respected. TransCanada does not respect the individual rights people have to their property along the pipeline route by using eminent domain to take their land. TransCanada is acting rational however by building a pipeline to improve the profit of the company. The means is appropriate according to Kant, and the ends is also appropriate; as a business it is their job to increase profit for their stockholders. TransCanada is respecting the workers involved with the pipeline and oil in Alberta by providing jobs and economic growth. However, the treatment of farmers and landowners along the pipeline route is unacceptable to Kant, and therefore this case is unethical. This case could become ethical if TransCanada would respect the landowner's wishes to not have a pipeline built on their land. All of the above ethical theories are limited to the actions and results of said actions. They don't look at the human characteristics that have led to this action and result happening. 

Virtue Theory

Virtue Theory is an ethical theory that focuses on the human characteristics of the action of a business or company. Suppose someone is in need of help. A utilitarian would help because it would maximize the happiness of everyone. A Kantian would help because they would be acting within a moral rule, such as "do unto others as you would be done by" . A virtue ethicist would help because it is charitable and benevolent to help someone. A virtue is a trait of character considered good and benevolent to have as a trait. A vice is the exact opposite of virtue, a bad and malevolent trait to have. The four main virtues in business are: honesty, temperance, courage, and justice. Honesty is useful in doing business with other companies, and in treating employees with respect. Temperance is useful in keeping a company under reasonable control; preventing a company from making aggressive mergers. Courage is the ability for a company to take a stand for what is right. Justice is the application of hard work, good ideas, and fair practice to achieve a better company. TransCanada follows the honesty virtue and the justice virtue but not the temperance or justice virtue. TransCanada wants to create more jobs with the pipeline and help the economy, albeit indirectly. TransCanada is putting in hard work to counter the resistance encountered with the construction of the pipeline too. TransCanada doesn't want to talk about how they are taking land from people or how TransCanada is being very aggressive in its expansion of the Keystone pipeline system. This case is difficult to analyze as a virtue ethicist, as TransCanada has represented some, but not all, virtues of businesses. 

Justified Ethics Evaluation

In my opinion, TransCanada did not act ethically in this case. The Keystone XL pipeline cutting through people's land, which they don’t want, is wrong, and making them have the pipeline is worse. The government is misusing eminent domain powers to give TransCanada their pipeline. The pipeline will increase oil production in Alberta which cause irreparable damage to the environment in Alberta. An oil spill cause by the Keystone XL pipeline would also cause a lot of damage to the environment, which everyone depends on. 

References

(1) Kroll, Andy, Elbert Barnes/Flickr, Kate Sheppard, Suzanne Goldenberg, Michael Klare, Pema Levy, Nathalie Baptiste, and Ben Dreyfuss. "EXCLUSIVE: State Dept. Hid Contractor's Ties to Keystone XL Pipeline Company." Mother Jones. Mother Jones, 21 Mar. 2013. Web. 04 Apr. 2017. <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/keystone-xl-contractor-ties-transcanada-state-department>.

(2) Seigel, Robert. "Nebraskan Farmer Voices Opposition To Keystone XL Pipeline." NPR. NPR, 3 Nov. 2015. Web. 31 Jan. 2017. <http://www.npr.org/2015/11/03/454342281/nebraskan-farmer-voices-opposition-to-keystone-xl-pipeline>.

(3) "Keystone XL Pipeline: Why Is It so Disputed?" BBC News. BBC, 24 Jan. 2017. Web. 30 Jan. 2017. <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30103078>.

(4) DAVIS, JULIE H. "Obama Won’t Yield to Company’s Bid to Delay Keystone Pipeline Decision." The New York Times. New York Times, 3 Nov. 2015. Web. 30 Jan. 2017. <https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/us/politics/obama-wont-yield-to-companys-bid-to-delay-keystone-pipeline-decision.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FKeystone%20XL&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=40&pgtype=collection&_r=0>.

(5) Davenport, Coral. "E.P.A. Says Pipeline Could Spur Emissions." The New York Times. New York Times, 3 Feb. 2015. Web. 30 Jan. 2017. <https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/04/us/politics/epa-review-of-keystone-pipeline-notes-potential-rise-in-greenhouse-gases.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FKeystone%20XL>.

(6) Baker, Peter, and Coral Davenport. "Drumpf Revives Keystone Pipeline Rejected by Obama." The New York Times. New York Times, 24 Jan. 2017. Web. 30 Jan. 2017. <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/us/politics/keystone-dakota-pipeline-trump.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FKeystone%20XL>.

(7) "Vision and Strategies." TransCanada Corporation. Http://www.transcanada.com/vision-strategies.html, n.d. Web. 04 Apr. 2017. <http://www.transcanada.com/vision-strategies.html>.  

(8) "Our Business At A Glance." (n.d.): n. pag. Mar. 2017. Web. 4 Apr. 2017. <http://www.transcanada.com/docs/About_Us/TransCanada-Our-Business-At-A-Glance.pdf>.

(9) "Report of the Annual Meeting." (n.d.): n. pag. TransCanada Corporation. TransCanada, Feb. 2017. Web. 4 Apr. 2017. <http://www.transcanada.com/docs/Investor_Centre/2016_Annual_Report.pdf>.

(10)     Tracy, Tennille, and Edward Welsch. "News and Information for the Downstream Oil and Gas Industry." DownstreamToday.com Your Refinery, Petrochem, Pipeline and LNG Destination. DownStreamToday, 26 Aug. 2011. Web. 05 Apr. 2017. <https://downstreamtoday.com/news/article.aspx?a_id=27703&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1>.

(11)     Israel, Josh. "TransCanada Is Seizing People's Land To Build Keystone, But Conservatives Have Been Dead Silent." ThinkProgress. ThinkProgress, 01 Mar. 2015. Web. 11 Apr. 2017. <https://thinkprogress.org/transcanada-is-seizing-peoples-land-to-build-keystone-but-conservatives-have-been-dead-silent-29f361eaeea4>.