Findings – The business-society-government relationship in China sets itself apart Across the spectrum of corporate social responsibility issues – consumer . problems has been in existence for ages, but the concept has gained more supports in the Theories of Government, Business and Society relationships. We need to stand back and look at the whole body of our problems and not to each of us new revelations of illegality by business and government leaders. .. The second has to do with the relationship between the corporation and the.
But simply closing the revolving door in finance is not a solution. According to the Boston Globefrom throughsome four-fifths of retiring three- and four-star US generals went to work as consultants or defense executives.
Likewise, the US-based group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics has shown the extent to which careers lead from the US Department of Defense to the defense industry. But close ties between business and government are also necessary. Strong economies need strong businesses and strong trade, and that requires good relationships with policymakers. They are given excessive leeway because they, like many financial firms, are too important to fail. This complex dance between business and government is never-ending and always evolving.
It is the stuff of gatherings like the World Economic Forum, where business leaders and governments talk tough on panels and make nice in back rooms. And the need to do both has become more obvious than ever in an era of slow economic growth and privatisation of services once provided by the public sector. The working relationship is important and should not be condemned, but it must be recognised openly. On 1 August Sanlu formally detected the presence of melamine in the milk it collected, though within the industry it had been an open secret for a long time.
City officials waited until 9 September to inform the provincial officials, who relayed the information to the central government the next day.
Meanwhile, Sanlu quietly removed some of its products from the market while reassuring consumers of the high quality of its products. On 11 September the first baby died from drinking the tainted formula Ma, The Fonterra Group of New Zealand, which held a 43 percent stake in Sanlu, had pressed Sanlu to recall the tainted products, but Sanlu and local government officials refused.
Fonterra then asked its government for help.
Relationship between Government and Business Organizations
Sanlu admitted the truth on the same day and started to recall about tons of tainted dairy products. Government investigators later uncovered dairy products also tainted with melamine by 21 other dairy producers.
In early December, the Chinese government updated the figures of victims: These tactics include repeated denial of any quality problem with their products, bribing and silencing complaining consumers, and engaging in public relations campaign. Until the last minute before Sanlu admitted that its milk formula was tainted with melamine, the company repeatedly denied to the public the connection between kidney stone babies and its milk formula and pointed instead to other potential sources of the disease.
When one consumer named Wang Yuanping repeatedly inquired and complained about its products, Sanlu sent a representative to his home and gave him four boxes of new milk formula and asked him to remove his blogs on internet forums. Meanwhile, Sanlu started an offensive public relations campaign. Baidu, a leading internet search engine company, blocked most of negative information about Sanlu voc.
Consumer associations often act no more Business- than as a nominal mediating agency between suppliers and consumers. Corporate government- consumer hotlines, on the other hand, may listen to the consumer, but not solve the root problem. Wang bought 15 bags of milk formula at different times for his family in November, He soon noticed the urine of his year-old daughter, who had the habit of drinking a glass of milk before bed, became thick and contained little pellets in the morning after she drank the formula.
Sometimes she even had diarrhea. But when she stopped drinking, those symptoms were gone. When she started drinking the formula again, the symptoms returned.
Sanlu soon confirmed that the products were made by the company, but made no comments about the quality of the products. The company then sent a local representative to contact him after a few days. The representative asked Wang to either return or exchange the unused products. Thinking of the safety of other consumers, Wang refused and insisted on seeing the test results.
The representative cited trade secret reasons, and Wang was never given any test results. Wang then decided to file a complaint with the Consumers Association of Taishun County in Zhejiang province.
On March 27, Wang and a representative from the supermarket that sold him the milk formula had a meeting at the Consumers Association of Taishun County.
The representative admitted that the products were sold through them but said that they could only refund him. Wang did not agree to that and insisted on knowing if the product had any quality problems. Wang hoped that the Consumers Association would send the products for proper testing. But he was then told that he had to pay for the testing first.
The meeting reached no solution. Wang then sent an e-mail to Sanlu and asked the company once more for test results. The company did not reply. Meanwhile, Wang pressed the local Consumers Association again to test the products for the good of the consumers. But the batch of products was then already replaced by newly packaged products in the supermarket. Wang signed the contract, but secretly kept two bags of the original products. Zhong took the rest away. One blogger later asked Wang why he did not persist to the end.
It sometimes takes great courage for a reporter to expose the unethical conduct of a giant corporation. In the milk scandal, several news articles had reported cases of kidney stone babies, vaguely pointing to milk formula, but no one pinpointed any specific company that made the formula, until one reporter unambiguously named Sanlu in his report. The news story was then frantically forwarded among netizens, causing furor among them and soon among the general public.
The reporter later admitted: When my report got published, all that kept appearing in my mind was Sanlu indignantly accusing the reporter of irresponsibility and demanding that the reporter be brought to the court.
Additionally, the municipal government also organized a team headed by the deputy mayor that went to the Sanlu Corporation, helping the company to deal with the incident. But the municipal government did not report the incident to the provincial government until 9 September. This video, and the subsequent furor fomented by newspaper reports across the country, led in less than three weeks to the largest recall of ground beef in US history.
The video had been shot by a member of the Humane Society who had applied for work at the Business- slaughterhouse a few weeks before and who had surreptitiously brought the camera to government- work Martin and Contreras, ; see also Kesmodel et al.
The recall included all frozen and raw beef products that had been shipped from the society plant since February 1,amounting to million pounds and exceeding by four times the largest previous beef recall.
While the Department of Agriculture DOA itself does not have the authority to issue recalls, it can remove its inspectors from slaughterhouses and prohibit shipment of beef products from those plants. DOA officials reported that approximately 37 million pounds had been sold to the federal government for use in school lunch programs.
They also stated that most of this beef had almost certainly been consumed and that there had been no reports of any illnesses associated with the recalled product.
The assumption is that they are more likely to carry pathogens — possibly even those pathogens related to mad cow disease — with the associated increased risk of danger to the consumers of the beef. There was a loophole, however, at the time of the incident.
If an onsite veterinarian ruled that the downer cow was suitable to enter the food chain, the plant could slaughter the animal and include it in the normal processing procedures. The product recall did not end there. There are some striking contrasts here with the tainted milk scandal in China.
First, the regulatory apparatus, while hardly perfect, worked very quickly to address the problem once it was known. One might even argue that the recall went beyond what was absolutely necessary under the circumstances in an attempt to minimize public concern. Indeed, extraordinary actions were taken even though not a single illness was reported, let alone any deaths.
Second, the entire process was triggered by the actions of an advocacy group, whose main purpose, ironically, is not public health but the proper treatment of animals.
Why strong ties between business and government matter | Business | The Guardian
JMD Third, because of the free and open media in the US public knowledge of the 30,1 incident became widespread very quickly once the video was released. At this stage there was no alternative to swift action both by the federal government and the company involved. Fourth, local governments really have no role to play in consumer protection in the US. In the beef recall case the federal government carried the entire burden; both the Congress and the Department of Agriculture reacted to the problem with great speed.
At this stage one might reasonably conclude that a country with a more highly developed infrastructure — established legislation, functioning regulatory agencies, an active and effective complex of advocacy organizations, and a free and open media — is necessary for the protection of consumers. But it is not sufficient as we shall see in the following section.
An elderly woman, a patient at the facility, died after eating the peanut butter.
By this time eight deaths and more than illnesses in 44 states and Canada had been linked to the salmonella outbreak. The society Plainview plant had been operating unlicensed for four years and so had never been inspected Layton and Miroff, Some businesses did not rely on government regulators to assure the safety of products and their ingredients.
Companies are not required to report the findings of internally-ordered inspections and tests to either the federal or state regulatory agencies. On a number of occasions when PCA was informed of the presence of salmonella in its samples, it would submit those samples to another testing lab and sometimes get a negative report.
There was a problem providing the content you requested
The woefully inadequate inspection staffs and resources at both the federal and state levels mean that food safety cannot be assumed and is certainly compromised. The fact that companies are not required to divulge the results of internal tests to state or federal officials, even when they indicate serious contamination problems, came as a surprise both to legislators and to the public.
Although there are plenty of instances in the west where faulty products have found their way onto the markets, with and without the explicit approval of the manufacturers or distributors, nevertheless the tainted milk scandal points to some sharp differences between conditions in China and in the west.
First, the business-government relationship in the Chinese context seems quite distinct from that in the US context. In both contexts, governments play a regulatory and protective role — regulating business against unlawful behavior and protecting lawful business operations.
Why strong ties between business and government matter
As a result, the protective role sometimes may take precedence over the regulatory role. JMD Unfortunately, the protective, paternal aspect of the local government was 30,1 inherently partial and enabling.
With the belief that it was protected by the local parent government, the company repeatedly assured the public of the safety of its products and denied any quality problems even though the company knew that its products were tainted, until the local government could not protect it any longer. Without the protective involvement of the municipal government, Sanlu might not have been able to be so unwavering in its stance toward its tainted milk products.
The peanut butter case, in contrast, was marked by a lack of governmental involvement. The Plainview, TX, plant was not even licensed. In short, in these two cases, the local governments exemplified two extremes: In the US, governments at the federal and state levels also combine regulatory and supportive functions.