One of which is, during the second recall, should the CEO have informed the public through the company’s website the way he did with the first recall? Another question is, why was Jeni’s able to open their shops again if there was still a threat of their ice cream being contaminated? Did the public have the right to know that there was second recall? The question that I am going to focus on is, should the CEO have informed the public the same way he did during the first …show more content…
The values that apply to this situation would be the company’s professional, moral, logical and socio-cultural values. The public does have a right to know about the recall, however the company did already inform them once about the first recall and they did rather thoroughly. Jeni’s was only open again for a week or so before the second recall. The value of fairness also comes into play. Is the company being fair by not making the public aware of their second recall via their website? The last value is socio-cultural. Did the CEO make it clear that hard work and action was taking place to fix the second mishap? The ethical principle that I think is overall shown in this situation is the Agape Principle. During the first recall John Lowe was very open with the public through posts on his website about the recall explain how he wanted to make sure no one would be harmed from the company’s ice cream and how they were working extremely hard to find a solution for the people it seemed. The company is technically being loyal to the public though because even though John Lowe did not release a statement to the company’s website. The company did post on the inside of the door at the Jeni’s ice cream establishments, a statement regarding the second closure. The answer that I find most ethical is to not have