After reading this case study can someone please answer the following questions as if they were a manager who is reporting to the board of directors. In your own words.

The Business of Food

Food security can be defined in terms of the availability of adequate nutritious food and the ability of people to have access to that food. Global food security raises a multitude of ethical issues concerning the relationship between individuals, business, government, and the natural environment. Perhaps rivaled only by the decisions we make about energy, our food choices have a profound impact on the environment. And as in the case with energy, the choices we have as consumers are greatly shaped by what happens in business. At first glance, one might think that food should be treated like any other economic commodity, produced and distributed according to market demand. From this perspective, business in general has no unique ethical responsibilities regarding food. But two factors in particular suggest that there are good ethical reasons for paying close attention to the business of food. First, unlike most other

economic goods, food is an essential human need; a case can be made that food is something for which all people have a basic human right. It would be difficult to judge any economic system as ethically adequate if it failed to meet this basic human need for food. Second, food production and distribution can have a profound impact on the earths biosphere and the long-term productive capacity of the natural environment to provide for human needs. How food is producedsomething deeply influenced by businessgreatly impacts the

ongoing capacity of the earths biosphere to support life. These factors are captured in the well-known definition of sustainable development offered by the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Report) in 1987. This definition states that sustainable development meets the needs of the present

without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The Brundtland Report concluded that the standard model of economic development, and the role played by business within that model, was failing to meet the needs of large portions of the present human population and was operating in such a way that the ability of future generations to meet their own needs was at risk.

The food business continues to have a deep connection with a wide range of ethical and environmental issues. What we eat, the availability of food, how food is produced, the nutritional quality of food, food safety, who produces food, how food products are processed, and the environmental and social consequences of agriculture all raise important ethical questions. It seems fair to say that the most important ethical issue concerning food is the fact that hundreds of millions of people do not have enough of it. In 2017, the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization reported that some 821 million people globally were undernourished. In some areas of sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, as much as one-third of the population lacks adequate nutritional food. But the same UN report also points out that despite a growing global population, the number of people lacking adequate nutritional food has decreased by 200 million since 1990. Increased agricultural productivity created by modern farming techniques has played a major role in this decrease. In the past 200 years, observers have often argued that global population growth was outpacing food supply and continued growth was likely to lead to major food shortages and mass starvation. In the early 19th century, Thomas Malthus famously claimed that because population grows exponentially and food growth increases only arithmetically, population size will inevitably outgrow food availability. In

the 1960s, Paul Erhlichs book The Population Bomb similarly predicted that continued population growth was leading to an imminent global food crisis.

In both cases, food crises were avoided because of improved agricultural productivity that resulted from shifts toward a more centralized and industrial model of agriculture. As a result, both Malthuss and Ehrlichs predictions failed to come true. In the 19^th century, the food collapse predicted by Malthus was avoided due to technological advances produced by the Industrial Revolution, advances that greatly increased both the amount of land that could be turned to agriculture and the efficiency and productivity of that

land. In the late 20th century and continuing today, technological advances in machinery, irrigation, pesticides, fertilizers, plant and animal breeding, and genetically modified crops have greatly increased food production across the globe.

Critics charge that many of these modern agricultural practices, including the very model of industrial agriculture itself, contribute to a range of health, safety, social, and environmental problems. Intensive farming techniques threaten soil fertility, deplete groundwater supplies, poison soil and water with pesticide residue, disrupt ecosystems, threaten biodiversity, and jeopardize the ongoing productivity

of the earths biosphere. Many critics also claim that the model of contemporary agribusiness has placed significant political, economic, and social power into the hands of a few giant multinational corporations. Food shortages can also be explained by wider market forces. The type of food that is produced and the uses to which it is put are determined at least as much by market demand as by what people need. Market demand, understood as what someone is willing to pay

for, explains why agricultural resources in some of the worlds most productive lands are used to produce feed crops for animals rather than food for humans. In 2014, a National Geographic story pointed out that almost half of the worlds crops are used as animal feed(36%) or for fuel or industrial products (9%).

Modern agriculture accounts for 25% of greenhouse gas emissions and more than 70% of groundwater extraction. In the United States, 75% of corn production is used for animal feed, ethanol production, or sweeteners such as high fructose corn syrup. As societies become more affluent, as happened in Europe and North America and as is happening in China and India, increased demand for beef,

dairy products, poultry, and pork diverts an even larger percentage of crops away from fulfilling direct human needs. In terms of pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and water usage, producing beef, poultry, dairy, and pork products has a much higher environmental toll than grain production. Of course, agribusiness and food production have an even more direct effect on the natural environment with their treatment of animals. Many critics argue that there are serious ethical issues involved in animal agriculture beyond problematic human health and environmental consequences. Specifically, chickens and turkeys are bred to be overweight flightless animals with little resemblance to the

chickens and turkeys of a hundred years ago. Animals are kept in overcrowded facilities, prevented from any form of exercise, fed

unnatural diets, dosed with antibiotics and growth hormones, separated from their offspring, mutilated to prevent natural behaviors like flight or pecking, and then slaughtered in brutal, mechanized ways. According to critics, all this is done in the name of market efficiency and profit. The food industry itself, including agriculture, retail food suppliers, and restaurants, often defends its practices on market demand grounds. From this perspective, the global demand for food could not be met without the industrial techniques used in modern agriculture. The type and quality of food available are also dependent on consumer demand. If the market demanded smaller serving sizes, less beef, more fresh fruits and vegetables, and less convenient and inexpensive processed foods, then business would provide it. But, according to the food industry, asking business to do these things without the market demand will result in business failures and food shortages.

Imagine that you have just been appointed to a new position within a large grocery store chain located in the Midwest United States. You are the first person to hold this position, which reports directly to the Board of Directors. The position was developed to help the company be more aware of how they can help in the fight against hunger in the Midwest communities that they serve. The Board of Directors is made up of a diverse group that includes suppliers (farmers), as well as employees from both inner-city and rural environments who have worked their way up in this grocery store chain. This Board of Directors knows the grocery business well, and it recognizes the different challenges faced in the different contexts where its stores are located. Keeping in mind the case study that you have just read, apply the concepts from this course to your first report to the Board of Directors.

What would be your first priority?

How would you develop a plan to meet this priority by taking into consideration the WRAP process by Heath and Heath?

What ethical considerations are relevant in the case? How might corporate culture potentially impact this case? Is corporate societal responsibility a factor? How might Heath and Heath (2013) villains impact decision-making? Replace the villain with one (or more) of Heath and Heath (2013) widen your options techniques. Explain how one of more of these techniques may have impacted the