| Course | BUS 454 Ethical Decision Making for Business |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 7 |
| Paper type | Crisis response evaluation |
| Length | About 1,010 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Business Administration |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for BUS 454 Module 7
Undeclared Peanuts: Ethics and Stakeholder Communication in a Snack Bar Recall
Student Name
Business Administration Program, Aspen University
BUS 454: Ethical Decision Making for Business
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Undeclared Peanuts: Ethics and Stakeholder Communication in a Snack Bar Recall
On a Tuesday morning, Harbor Point Foods' quality team learned that 18,000 cases of its oat and honey bars, labeled free of peanuts, had been run on a line that had not been fully cleaned after a peanut butter product. Tests of retained samples found peanut protein. A parent had already called the company's consumer line to report that her son developed hives after eating a bar. The bars were in about 900 stores in six states. This paper evaluates the ethical and communication choices Harbor Point faced and sets out the response it should make.
The Decision to Recall
Peanut is one of the major food allergens that federal law requires to be declared on labels (Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004, 2004), and undeclared allergens are among the most common reasons for food recalls. For people with peanut allergy, exposure can cause life-threatening reactions. The ethical choice is not close: the risk to vulnerable consumers outweighs any cost to the company. The Food and Drug Administration publishes recall notices and classifies recalls by health risk, with the most serious class reserved for products that could cause serious health consequences or death (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, n.d.). Harbor Point should recall all affected lots immediately and notify the agency, rather than wait to be asked.
Understanding the Crisis
Coombs (2007) developed situational crisis communication theory, which holds that stakeholders assign responsibility for a crisis based partly on its type. Crises in which the organization is a victim, such as tampering, produce little attribution of responsibility; accidents produce some; and preventable crises, caused by human error or knowing violations, produce the most. A company's history of similar crises and its prior reputation can intensify attributions. The theory recommends matching response strategies to responsibility: the greater the responsibility, the more the response should move toward accommodating strategies such as apology and compensation.
Harbor Point's Responsibility
The contamination resulted from a cleaning step that was skipped during a rushed changeover. That makes it a preventable crisis in Coombs's terms, even though no one intended harm. Stakeholders will reasonably hold Harbor Point responsible, and a response that minimized responsibility, such as blaming a contractor or describing the problem as a labeling technicality, would likely deepen anger and damage trust further.
Stakeholders and Messages
The table sets out what each stakeholder needs in the first forty-eight hours.
| Stakeholder | What they need | Channel | Timing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consumers with peanut allergy and parents | Clear warning, product identification, what to do | Recall notice, news release, social media, allergy organizations | Within hours |
| The family that called | Personal contact, concern, help with costs | Phone call from a senior leader | Same day |
| Retailers | Lot numbers, removal instructions, credit | Direct calls and written notice | Within hours |
| FDA | Notification and recall plan | Formal notice | Same day |
| Employees | Facts and how to answer questions | Shift meetings and written brief | Before public release if possible |
| Media | Facts and a spokesperson | Statement and availability | With public notice |
The First Forty-Eight Hours
Speed and clarity protect people first. The recall notice should state the product name, package sizes, lot codes and best-by dates in plain language, describe the risk to people allergic to peanuts, and tell consumers to return the bars for a full refund or discard them. Harbor Point should contact national allergy organizations, whose networks reach the people most at risk. A dedicated phone line and web page should answer questions around the clock for the first week.
The Apology
Harbor Point's statement should take responsibility plainly: "A cleaning step was missed when we changed products on one of our lines, and bars labeled free of peanuts may contain peanut. We are sorry. If you or your child has a peanut allergy, please do not eat these bars." It should describe what the company is doing and avoid speculation or defensive language. The chief executive should deliver it in person, which signals that the company treats the matter as serious.
Compensation and Care
Beyond refunds, Harbor Point should offer to pay reasonable medical costs for any consumer who had an allergic reaction. For the family that called, a senior leader should call to express concern, ask how the child is and offer help. These are ethical obligations to people harmed, and they are also consistent with the accommodating strategies Coombs recommends for preventable crises. Care should be offered without requiring anyone to give up legal rights in exchange, which would turn help into a bargaining tool.
Preventing Recurrence
The company should investigate why the cleaning step was skipped, looking at schedules, staffing and supervision, not only the operator. It should consider dedicating a line to peanut products, adding allergen testing after every changeover and requiring a second signature on changeover cleaning. The investigation's findings and the changes should be shared with employees and summarized publicly.
Ethics Under Pressure
Crises create pressure to protect the company first. The ethical test is whether the response puts the safety and needs of the people at risk ahead of short-term reputation. In this case, the two point the same way: honest, fast, accommodating communication is both right and most likely to preserve trust.
Evaluating the Response Afterward
After the recall, Harbor Point should review how well it performed: how quickly the notice went out, how many cases were recovered, how many calls the hotline received and how they were answered, whether any further reactions were reported and how retailers and consumers rated the company's communication. The review should be honest about what went poorly as well as what went well. Its lessons belong in an updated crisis plan, rehearsed at least once a year with the people who would carry it out.
Conclusion
An undeclared peanut allergen is a preventable crisis with serious potential harm to vulnerable people. Harbor Point should recall immediately, communicate clearly with every stakeholder, apologize without deflection, care for those affected and fix the conditions that caused the error. Situational crisis communication theory and basic ethics lead to the same response.
References
Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 163-176. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049
Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-282, 118 Stat. 905 (2004).
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Recalls, market withdrawals, & safety alerts. https://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety-alerts
BUS 454 Module 7 instructions, in plain terms
Crisis management is one of the situations Aspen's BUS 454 examines through a stakeholder lens, and a recall tests every idea in the course under time pressure. Aspen gives the Module 7 wording to students in class; this sample plans one allergen recall from the first hour. Decide first whether the ethical choice is clear, and say so if it is. Use a recognized crisis communication theory to judge responsibility and choose strategies. Identify every stakeholder and what each needs, through which channel and when. Write the key message, including an apology if warranted. Address care for people harmed. Plan prevention based on causes, and describe how the company will evaluate its response afterward.
How the BUS 454 Module 7 example is put together
The paper opens with contaminated bars in 900 stores in six states. The recall section cites the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act and the FDA's recall system. Coombs's theory is explained, with victim, accidental and preventable crisis types. A skipped cleaning step during a rushed changeover makes this preventable. A six-row table lists stakeholders' needs, channels and timing. The forty-eight-hour section covers the notice, allergy organizations and a hotline. A quoted apology takes responsibility plainly. Compensation includes medical costs, without requiring anyone to waive rights. Prevention looks at schedules and staffing, and a post-recall review feeds an updated plan rehearsed yearly.
Where the marks sit in the BUS 454 Module 7 rubric
Crisis papers are assessed on sound ethical judgment, correct use of crisis theory, complete stakeholder coverage and a realistic, humane plan. This example classifies the crisis carefully and matches the response to responsibility, as the theory recommends. Its APA references are Coombs's Corporate Reputation Review article on situational crisis communication theory, the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004 and the FDA's recalls page. The stakeholder table shows timing and channels, not only audiences. Quoting the apology lets the instructor judge its tone. Linking prevention to root causes and planning a review show that the response continues after the headlines. Refusing to make help conditional on waiving legal rights shows ethical care beyond what communication theory alone requires.
Common BUS 454 Module 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
A frequent weakness is focusing on reputation before people's safety. Put protection of those at risk first. Another is misclassifying responsibility; decide whether the crisis was preventable and let that guide the response. Cover every stakeholder with timing and channel. Write the actual apology rather than describing it. Offer care to people harmed without conditions. Base prevention on root causes, not only on the individual who erred. Plan how you will learn from the response. Use official recall categories accurately. If you analyze a real recall, rely on the company's and regulator's notices for facts, and note what you cannot know from outside the company. Keep the apology short, specific and free of qualifications that shift blame.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More BUS 454 and Business Administration sample papers
- BUS 454 Module 1: Ethics and the Stakeholder View
- BUS 454 Module 2: Ethical Frameworks
- BUS 454 Module 3: Stakeholder Mapping
- BUS 454 Module 4: Workplace Ethics and Rights
- BUS 454 Module 5: Corporate Social Responsibility
- BUS 454 Module 6: Marketing and Product Ethics
- BUS 454 Module 8: Personal Code of Ethics
- BUS 225 Module 7: Discrimination and Fair Employment
- BUS 305 Module 4: Persuasive Proposal
- BUS 495 Module 8: Managing Across Borders
- BUS 210 Module 8: Fictitious Business Outline
BUS 454 Module 7 questions, answered
What does BUS 454 Module 7 usually ask for?
Aspen's BUS 454 applies the stakeholder approach to crises, so evaluating a crisis response and planning stakeholder communication is typical. Follow your classroom prompt.
What is situational crisis communication theory?
Coombs's theory that stakeholders assign responsibility based on the type of crisis and that responses should become more accommodating as responsibility increases.
Should a company apologize during a crisis?
When it is responsible for a preventable crisis, a clear apology combined with corrective action is generally recommended and is also the ethical response.
Where can I find a free BUS 454 Module 7 sample paper?
Read the full plan above, covering an undeclared peanut allergen recall with crisis theory, a stakeholder communication table, an apology and prevention.
What is a preventable crisis?
In situational crisis communication theory, a crisis caused by human error or knowing violation within the organization, which leads stakeholders to assign it the most responsibility.