Neda operates a small convenience store in a southern town that has a high tourist draw. After several years of operating the store, Neda has decided to no longer sell tobacco products of any kind because of her belief that they are dangerous and lead to addictions. After a few months, several other stores in the community also decide to stop selling tobacco products. Their rationale has more to do with lawsuits and criminal penalties when employees sell these products to minors. Within one year, all community stores have decided to ban the sale of tobacco products. The town has become known as "smokeless," and residents who make a living on tourism are afraid that this label will hurt tourism and their businesses. As more and more communities are prohibiting smoking in public places, this sample case study has been a real situation in many communities throughout the nation. As a result, there should be plenty of factual material available to reinforce your findings and conclusions.
1. Who are the stakeholders affected by the stores' decisions? Do the stores, as businesses, have an obligation to the broader community to not hurt tourism? Is Neda placing her own personal ethics ahead of business ethics? Is there a difference? Why, and how?
The stakeholders are Neda, her employees, owners and employees of the other businesses, the community and possible tourists. Neda's business stands to be negatively affected by the ban of tobacco products. Her employees could be out of a job if business is severely affected. As her business contributes to the local economy, members of the community may also be affected, with less tax money available for city services, repairs and improvements. The businesses do have an ...
Neda operates a small convenience stores for Short Case Analysis.