Introduction介紹

由于近年來(lái)出現(xiàn)了與商業(yè)道德違約相關(guān)的一系列案例，，物質(zhì)財(cái)富和良好信譽(yù)之間的沖突再次成為企業(yè)的中心點(diǎn)。對(duì)優(yōu)秀企業(yè)來(lái)說(shuō)，追求高利潤(rùn)和社會(huì)責(zé)任是統(tǒng)一的。本文將首先討論中國(guó)著名快餐連鎖店如肯德基，麥當(dāng)勞和比薩小屋的供應(yīng)商上海滬食品公司使用陳舊肉制品的情況。在此之后，它將解釋相關(guān)決策標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的重要性。最后，它將展示這種情況的解決方案。Since series of cases related to business ethics violation arises recent years, the conflict between material wealth and good reputation becomes the central points for enterprises again. For excellent enterprises, it is unified to pursue high profits and social responsibility. This essay will firstly discuss the case of usage of stale meat by Shanghai Husi Food, the supplier of famous fast-food chains, such as KFC, McDonald's and Pizza hut in China. Following this, it will explain importance of relevant decisions criteria. Finally, it will show solutions to this case.

Usage of stale meat by supplier of KFC and McDonald’s肯德基和麥當(dāng)勞供應(yīng)商使用陳舊肉
In the private survey on Jun 18, 2014, 18 tons of chicken breast and skin, overdue for half a month, was mixed in the raw material and made as delicious McNuggets. It is a harm not only to consumer’s interest, but to the company’s reputation and subsequent development. The company’s purpose is to maximize shareholder returns. The sacrifice of consumer profits is a violation to business ethics. Drucker (1973) stated three responsibilities that each enterprise should take.While Husi did not take two of the three social responsibilities. One is getting profits legally, which, however, was violated by using illegal stale meat. The other is maintaining social image and taking social responsibilities. It did not take its responsibility to deliver safe material to consumer. 


Relevant decision criteria and relative importance相關(guān)決策標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和相對(duì)重要性
As the service-type industry, the fast-food chains must take the consumer’s satisfaction and the cost providing the service into consideration. These two criteria measure exactly right the social welfare, which is the sum of producer surplus and consumer surplus. The higher the consumer’s satisfaction, the larger the consumer surplus. And on the condition of fine business ethics, lower cost of providing good services will deliver higher profits. In the above case, Husi Food pursued high profits blindly so that it ignored consumer surplus, which went against integrity principle, the basic business ethic, and its responsibility to supply safe goods and comfortable services. The two criteria set up constraints for company’s behavior for the sake of higher social welfare. What’s more, only when firms stress these criteria enough can they provide better goods and services to achieve profit maximization.


Potential solution and reasons supporting it潛在解決方案和支持它的原因  
A rational solution to this case is firms accepting occasional survey, like twice a year on someday randomly selected. Each firm will be on the alert at any time and of course obey regulations obediently. Because firms have motivation to get high profits with improper behaviors and lack self-discipline, such random surveys will reduce the improper behaviors for the big loss when problems are checked out.
In the real life, bad behaviors such like this will be forgiven by the firm itself and fade away with time going by. Tracing back to 2009, Wang Shi, the CEO of China Vanke Group declared that bribery was never of his business, which seemed impossible. However, he will get forgiveness if he does behave corruptly as bribery is a potential regulation for Chinese real estate developer. But it does not mean this private violation should be encouraged. 

Conclusion總結(jié)

Business ethics and social responsibility should be the connotation of companies. Both profits and reputation are put into importance for a conscientious firm, which all conscienceless firms prove when they receive relative punishment. 

References文獻(xiàn)

Drucker. 1973. Management：Tasks，Responsibilities，Practices. Retrieved on 9th October, 2014 .
Maliene, V. (2011). "Specialized property valuation: Multiple criteria decision analysis". Journal of Retail & Leisure Property 9 (5): 443–50.doi:10.1057/rlp.2011.7.

本文編號(hào)：174880