McDonald and the Stella Liebeck Scalding Case Study

McDonald and the Stella Liebeck Scalding - Case theater ExampleMcDonalds further maintained that this temperature was essential in maintaining optimum taste in the coffee, a have most customers prefer to their safety. The court, while holding that McDonalds was largely responsible for the burns Stella Liebeck received from the scalding coffee locomote to acknowledge that the plaintiff was partly responsible for her injuries. They based this decision on comparative negligence and the particular that the warning on the coffee was not sufficient. A club should be responsible for most plainly not all of the consequences of consumers using its products. The first reason why any smart set should be neutralize of consumers affairs is the fact that consumers are also stakeholders. In the realm of business, in most grimaces, consumers are subaltern stakeholders. However, consumers intermittent ability to affect the running of a company (Gibson 245) should not be underestimated, case in point, the Stella Liebeck law suit. As much(prenominal)(prenominal), swallowing the consequences of its goods and services, a company builds a foundation on which it stomach make profits while satisfying its customers. Secondly, accepting liability in regard to consumers ensures that the company gains the presumption of its consumers. Gaining trust is instrumental when a business seeks a market niche and also to apply strategies such as cost leadership. From the actions of McDonalds one can see that there is a clear necessitate to fulfill customer needs for profit maximization. An excellent example is keeping the coffee extremely white to maintain its taste. However, an intriguing concept is the aspect of duty and fiducial relationship. Scholars hold that the interactions between a consumer and company should not reflect a means to an end character. Therefore, a company should pursue a fiduciary relationship rather than a duty oriented strategy. Fear of lawsuits and a dwin dling market patch should not be the only reason why a company strives to accept liability for its actions. Scholars such as Goodpaster argue that strategic thinking favors prudence rather than moral obligation. Society today is excited with ethical debates ranging from euthanasia to the rights of terrorists. The business world is not dormant on issues of moral philosophy. A company by law and social stratification should consider the welfare of all its consumers regardless of the monetary ramifications. Philosophical ethics will argue against the actions of businesses with the claim that the self interest that causes them to pursue moral acts renders the act immoral. Gibson postulates that a company should treat its consumers as more than profit maximization tools thus the deontological approach. At this point, it is imperative to examine a moral act by the company Johnson & Johnson. In 1982, cyanide dirty batch of its capsules killing more than half a dozen individuals. This led them to acknowledge fault, pull out 32 million bottles of the presumed contaminated product from the market and face crippling loses. However, after a while the company built its secern again and regained its market position. This is what Gibson christens the bottom line. Despite the motive behind an action, the result is that both stakeholders were happy. McDonald fails in that it fails to accept rightful responsibility especially when the plaintiff requested medical