Disney's Nutrition Study Scandal (2016)

Controversy

Mickey Mouse themed waffles served at Disney World

The Walt Disney Company has been a multi-media empire since its founding in 1923, and generates over $36 million in revenue a day. According to the Walt Disney Company website, their mission statement is "to be one of the world's leading producers and providers of entertainment and information. Using our portfolio of brands to differentiate our content, services and consumer products, we seek to develop the most creative, innovative and profitable entertainment experiences and related products in the world." Their business portfolio consists of media networks such as ABC, Freeform, and ESPN, while their parks, experiences, and consumer products consist of Disneyland Resort, Walt Disney World, Disney Cruise Line, and the Disney store, along with many other amusement park locations around the globe. 

On April 8, 2016, an article was published with information that the company had pressured an academic journal to withdraw a study children’s meal nutrition. According to the article, Disney was not worried about the contents of the study, but rather feared being associated with one of the study’s main authors, James Hill. Dr. Hill, a professor at the University Of Colorado School Of Medicine, had his last work, a project on sugary drinks and obesity funded by Coca Cola, opposed by fellow scientists in his field who felt that the results were tampered with.  This study had some bias in Coca Cola’s favor as Hill and his team determined that an increase of exercise could counteract eating and drinking sugary and fattening food.

STAT obtained emails between Disney and the study’s authors asking them to withdraw the meal study, regardless of an editor’s warnings of negative PR. Although no information has been revealed about Disney’s involvement with the study, if any at all, but this study shows how corporate sponsors and researchers interact with one another. When a Disney spokesman spoke on the issue, he wanted to reiterate that the questioning wasn’t about the study’s result, but rather Hill’s participation in the study.

Disney has their nutrition guidelines posted on their website now in 2018, which states that "Disney champions the happiness and well-being of kids, parents, and families, and will support healthy lifestyles for all ages by offering and portraying a balance of nutritious options." These guidelines later say that "virtually all of our food or beverage related promotions and sponsorships meet these Guideline. The few exceptions are generally a result of pre-existing contractual obligations." Although they state that they regularly re-evaluate their guidelines for nutrition, it is clear that other things have been done to meet these guidelines, and that they were not living up to the company's mission statement when they suppressed the study from being released.

Stakeholders

Dr. James O. Hill: Professor of Pediatrics & Medicine,
Director Center for Human Nutrition, Director of the
Colorado Clinical Nutrition Research Unit

Many different stakeholders are effected by the ethical dilemma extend far beyond the stockholders. Shareholders of Disney, however, trust the company to be truthful on its studies, including knowing the procedures about how to fund them. Regardless of the true implications, a company funded study should not be pressured into not releasing the results as it is unethical and can cause stakeholders to loose trust in the company. The customers who go to Disney’s amusement parks are also affected by these decisions. Many common diseases can be managed or avoided altogether, including (but not limited to) certain cancers, high blood pressure, obesity, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes. Most people have at least a fundamental understanding of nutrition, and people who are more likely to get these types of diseases pay attention to every detail about food they are eating. Especially while at a new location that serves food, people want to see the nutritional facts of the food they are are eating, and  they have a right to know so they can stay healthy. When nutrition studies are under pressure to be held from publication, it causes these customers to not trust companies.

Individualism

An Individualist would think this case is ethical. According to Friedman’s individualism theory the only goal of business is to profit, so the obligation that the business person has is to maximize profit for the owner and/or stockholders. By dissociating itself from Hill and his team, Disney was doing the profitable thing by trying to avoid itself from someone who was part of an ethical controversy with another company. Disney spent  $2 billion dollars on advertising in 2016, and when compared to the previous four years, is substantially higher. This increase in spending can be associated with this ethical dilemma and the need to keep people coming to their parks. This move by Disney paid off as they were able to generate $55.63 billion in global revenue in 2016, which can be attributed to both the increased spending in advertising and the disassociation of Hill.

This was also the ethical choice based on the reputation of the company. In 2016, Forbes named Disney the second most reputable company in the world, which is higher than their 2015 ranking at sixth. This shows that the Walt Disney company has a high reputation around the world, specifically between the sales of motion pictures and the attraction to the amusement parks. With the disassociation of Hill, and the company's ability to advertise more, this can still be considered ethical. Based on Hill's reputation with his Coca Cola scandal, Disney had no choice but to disassociate itself from the study. By asking the publisher into not releasing the study, Disney was saving money and its reputation, all while staying within the law.

Kantianism

Mickey Mouse themed oranges 

According to a Kantianist, this case is unethical because of it violates the basic principles that Kantianism is based on. These four principles are act rationally, allow and help people to make rational decisions, respect people, their autonomy, and their individual needs and differences, and be motivated by good will. Because Disney attempted to withhold information, both the results of the study and the association with those who conducted the study, they are not allowing people to make rational decisions, nor acting rationally as a company. To act ethically in this situation, it would have been better to release the study, but also announce the association with Hill and his team and that the company chose poorly in their decision to work with them. In this hypothetical situation, people would be able to make a decision on the study themselves and Disney would have been motivated by good will to stay true to publishing the results of the study and help people make the decisions they want.

With Kantian ethics in mind, it is important to note the formula of humanity. According to Kant, the formula of humanity refers to "act[ing] in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means." In this sense, 'end' refers to something valuable in itself, for it's own sake, while 'means' refers to something that is valuable as a way to get something else. Disney compromised the study about nutrition by both hiring Hill in the first place, then again by suppressing the study's publication. By doing this, they are trying to get people to purchase food at their amusement parks that may be unhealthy for them, and has caused the nutrition details to be compromised overall.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism looks at the overall happiness of the stakeholders and attempts to maximize that happiness. With this decision to suppress the publication, the stakeholders would not be happy, thus it is unethical in this form of ethics. As mentioned above, the shareholders who hold stock in the Walt Disney company, this sort of scandal can cost thousands, even million of dollars in financial lost. The long term security that people try to achieve by investing in Disney can be dismantled by scandals like this. It raises the question "What else have they suppressed?" and "what will they suppress in the future regardless of them being caught once?" These types of questions can cause reputation to collapse and the benefit of shareholders investments to be stripped from the company.

More importantly, the customers who eat at the amusement parks can't trust the study's outcome, and with the publication being suppressed, they can't make decisions rationally. When people have diseases, or are trying to avoid diseases, that are depended on nutrition, scandals like this cause them to loose faith in the company, which in turn can cause them to avoid going to the amusement parks, cruises, resorts, and other themed locations that Disney owns. Disney, in turn, should have attempted to maximize happiness in both the stakeholders and the company by publicly denouncing the study with an explanation as to why they believe the study should be discredited. By doing this, customers would have the ability to be happy by making their own decisions, while the company would be happy by clearly separating themselves from Hill and his past scandals. 

Virtue Theory

The Virtue Theory is a theory based on Aristotle's ethics, and focuses around the the characteristics that allow things to function properly, or virtues as the name suggests. Virtues depend on the thing's function and the thing's circumstances, and to determine how to act in any situation, the mean between the extremes must be found, then acted upon. The four main characteristics are honesty, courage, justice, and temperance. 

Honesty can sway from absolute honesty and absolute dishonesty, and in this circumstance, Disney did not act honestly, but acted more towards the dishonesty side of the scale. By suppressing Hill's study from release by pressuring the publishing company, Disney was not honest towards their stakeholders. They attempted to withhold information about Hill's past and the association with Hill to begin with, and therefore were not acting according to this theory.  The extremes of courage range from cowardice to rashness, and in this situation Disney was acting rash in their decision to cover up the study. By acting quickly and not taking time to come up with a better solution, the company ended up digging themselves into a deeper hole with their stakeholders and could of caused some serious damage to the financials or their reputation. The courageous action would of been to make a public announcement explaining the situation with Hill and how, in the companies opinion, the study should be repealed and conducted with someone more credible as to allow the stakeholders to make their own decisions, while also gaining a better reputation for the company. With justice ranging from righteousness to corruption, it is clear to see that Disney was more towards the corruption side of the scale.

Even with temperance, Disney was not ethical in its decision making. Temperance, or self restraint, covers everything from abstinence to radicalness. Disney was radical in their decision to suppress the study's release, which goes against this theory and, again, could have acted in a more ethical way with some patience and a public announcement. Based off of these four basic virtues, it is clear that Disney was not ethical in their decision to pressure the the publisher about this study.

References

“About - Leadership, Management Team, Global, History, Awards, Corporate Responsibility.” The Walt Disney Company, www.thewaltdisneycompany.com/about/.

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. “Consumers - Using the Nutrition Facts Label: A How-To Guide for Older Adults.” U S Food and Drug Administration Home Page, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm267499.htm.

“Healthy Theme Park Meals?” Food and Brand Lab, 2016, foodpsychology.cornell.edu/JACR/Disney.

Kaplan, Sheila. “Disney Tried to Suppress Nutrition Study on Its Theme Park Meals.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 8 Apr. 2016, www.pbs.org/newshour/health/disney-tried-to-suppress-nutrition-study-on-its-theme-park-meals.

O’Connor, Anahad. “Coca-Cola Funds Scientists Who Shift Blame for Obesity Away From Bad Diets.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 9 Aug. 2015, well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/coca-cola-funds-scientists-who-shift-blame-for-obesity-away-from-bad-diets/.

Olinger, David. “CU Nutrition Expert Accepts $550,000 from Coca-Cola for Obesity Campaign.” The Denver Post, The Denver Post, 6 June 2016, www.denverpost.com/2015/12/26/cu-nutrition-expert-accepts-550000-from-coca-cola-for-obesity-campaign/.

Olinger, David. “CU Nutrition Expert Who Took Coca-Cola Money Steps Down.” The Denver Post, The Denver Post, 6 June 2016, www.denverpost.com/2016/03/23/cu-nutrition-expert-who-took-coca-cola-money-steps-down/.

Rucker, Robert B., and Michael R. Rucker. “Nutrition: Ethical Issues and Challenges.” Nutrition Research, Elsevier, 20 Oct. 2016, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0271531716302081.

Strauss, Karsten. “The World's Most Reputable Companies, 2016.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 13 Apr. 2016, www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2016/03/22/the-worlds-most-reputable-companies-2016/#476025e23389.

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/

Bud Light: Whatever, USA Not As Whatever As You Think

             
 

 Anheuser-Busch, the world’s largest beer selling company in the world controls a staggering 47.6% of the market share globally. The company started with one small brewery in St. Louis in 1860 and has grown into a fortune 500 company. In an attempt to control more of the market, Anheuser-Busch launched a creative, unheard of marketing campaign dubbed Whatever, USA. The event was advertised starting during the 2013 Super Bowl, and was to be held the weekend of September 1, 2014. However, in the weeks leading up to the event, controversy and criticism hit the company. [1]            Whatever, USA was to be a three-day bash held in a secret location of the United States. The company was to purchase part of a town and decorate it from head to toe in Bud Light colors. 1,000 lucky contestant winners were to be flown to the location for the ridiculous party. Leading up to the event, Anheuser-Busch representatives underwent secret negotiations with town officials in Crested Butte, Colorado. When this information leaked to the towns people the town erupted into an irate protest of the event. The townspeople did not believe their public goods and livelihood should be disrupted and bought out for a three-day alcohol fueled bash. The town entered into an 8-hour debate in the town hall over the event. Anheuser-Busch doubled their offer from $250,000 to a mere $500,000. The event went smoothly, however the aftermath did not. The paint used to transform the town was washed all over town in a storm after the event, damaging over $75,000 worth of personal property. In addition, the overload of people overwhelmed transportation companies, where people were stranded for days due to missed flight and security was lowered to try to speed up travel. In addition, the removal of the paint covered the town in a blue dust causing unseen lung damage and health effects form breathing in the paint chips.[2]

             This event did not only affect Anheuser-Busch and the townspeople, but the environment, American people, transportation providers and surrounding communities. TSA agents were told to push the crowd through security in order to speed up the process, threating the American people if anything were to happen. The stripping of the paint sprayed paint chips and fumes into the atmosphere, threatening the health of surrounding communities. As well as the stripping of the paint, the storm days after the event washed paint was spread all over town damaging trees, bushes, and grass.  In order to analyze this case, we must look through the four main ethical theories: Individualism, Utilitarianism, Kantianism and Virtue Theory.

Individualism entails businesses to maximize profits while behaving within the constraints of the law. Milton Friedman first developed the theory and believed that the sole goal of business is to maximize profits and nothing else. However, Machan came around years later and enhanced the theory to state that business should act socially responsible while maximizing profits and acting within the law. Anheuser-Busch did just that, through their marketing campaign, profits were enhanced, and they acted within the boundaries of the law. Utilitarianism deals with the total pleasure of the most beings against the pain experienced by the event.  Developed by Jeremy Bentham, a social activist, he believed that business should act in a way that promotes the most happiness for the most amounts of people. This case provides short-term happiness for 1,000 party

goers, while providing a disruption of peace for an entire town, transportation providers and a threat to the American people. Kantianism, developed by Immanuel Kant, states that one 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. Rather, use informed and rational consent from all parties.” [3]While looking at the case through this perspective, Anheuser-Busch acted unethically in the respect of being honest, and obtaining consent from all parties. In addition, they manipulated the town by throwing more money at the problem. Virtue theory uses four virtues in order to determine if an action is ethical: Justice, Courage, Temperance and Honesty. In this case, the company showed little courage by throwing money at the problem to get what they want rather than admitting their mistakes and moving forward. Then, continued to show little temperance by expanding their budget and throwing money around just to hold the event. Moreover, they showed little honesty by hiding the event details from the townspeople. Furthermore, they showed no justice or fairness because they provided a threat to the American people, disrupted many peoples peaceful lives, and damaged the environment just to hold a three day alcohol infused bash.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References:

"Crested Butte, Bud Light Controversy Builds as Whatever Rollout Starts." - The Denver Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2014.
"Crested Butte Residents Unhappy over Blue Paint and a Closed Street." - The Denver Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2014.
"Bud Light Bumps Into One Big Problem With Its Secret Party Town: The Residents." AdWeek. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2014.
Salazar, Heather. Case Manual. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print

---

[1] "Crested Butte, Bud Light Controversy Builds as Whatever Rollout Starts." - The Denver Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2014.

[2] "Crested Butte Residents Unhappy over Blue Paint and a Closed Street." - The Denver Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2014.

 

[3] Salazar, Heather. Case Manual. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print