Case Study and Instructions of seafood



Here is Your Sample Download Sample 📩


Australia Bay Seafoods is a made-up seafood corporation that operates in the fishery and seafood industries. The organization is committed to providing high-quality seafood goods while adhering to ethical practices. The firm is known for its commitment to sustainability, fair trade, and ethical sourcing.

Australia Bay Fish and Seafood recognizes the need of keeping integrity and maintaining openness across its supply chain. However, it was discovered during an internal operational assessment that a major supplier to the organization was involved in contemporary slavery practices (Fogarty et al., 2019). This news has alarmed the Management Team since it contradicts the company's pledge of ethical behavior.

The Management Team recognizes the importance of addressing this issue quickly and effectively. They have proposed four options for dealing with contemporary slavery practices. Each scenario takes a different strategy, ranging from doing nothing to being a business leader in preventing contemporary slavery (Lindley, Percy & Techera, 2019). The Management Team wants a complete study of each scenario from numerous ethical viewpoints, including legality and risk, in addition to an assessment of the potential repercussions, to make an educated choice.

In this study, we will examine the four scenarios put forward by the Management Team, analyze the ethical implications and ramifications, and make a recommendation for Austral Bay Seafoods on the best course of action. In addition, we will consider the difficulties of determining the appropriate option when it may contradict personal views or perspectives.

Scenario Analysis

Scenario 1: Do Nothing

Deontological Perspective

Australia Bay Seafoods has a moral obligation to confront and eradicate modern slavery practices in its supply chain. Scenario 1 proposes, on the other hand, that the organization does nothing in reaction to the disclosure regarding the important supplier's participation in modern slavery (Provencio, 2022). This strategy disregards the business's ethical commitments and fails to adhere to the ideals of fairness, justice, and human rights respect. By doing nothing, Australian Bay Seafoods would essentially condone and enable modern slavery practices by turning a blind eye to their presence. This violates the fundamental moral need to behave in a way that prevents damage, assures fairness, and protects the worth and welfare of people impacted by contemporary slavery.

Consequentialist Perspective

According to a consequentialist viewpoint, the repercussions resulting from doing nothing when it comes to the discovery of modern slavery practices can be severe for Australia Sea Seafoods. Failure to identify and resolve the problem might have serious consequences.

For starters, the company's image and integrity would be jeopardized. In an era in which ethical concerns are becoming increasingly relevant to customers, knowledge of the company's involvement with modern slavery practices can lead to a loss of customer confidence and loyalty (Haas, Phillipov & Gale, 2020). As a result, its competitive edge, sales, and long-term viability may suffer. Furthermore, the organization may face legal ramifications. Knowingly supporting suppliers that engage in modern slavery practices can result in legal penalties, fines, and even lawsuits, depending on the country (Paterson & Veth, 2020). Modern slavery-related legal responsibilities and legislation, such as the Modern Slavery Act in some countries, oblige organizations to take proactive efforts to prevent modern slavery in their operations and their supply chains.

By doing nothing, Sydney Bay Seafoods not only risks damaging its image and financial losses but also fails to perform its legal duties, possibly leading to legal sanctions and further harm to others in the supply chain affected.

Scenario 2: Take Minimal Internal Action

Deontological Perspective

From a deontological standpoint, Australia Bay Fish and Shellfish have a moral obligation to act in response to the discovery of modern slavery practices by its primary supplier. Scenario 2 advises that the organization does only the bare minimum of internal actions, such as discontinuing usage of the supplier without disclosing the issue outside (Sinclair et al., 2022). While this method meets the obligation to minimize the organization's involvement in slavery today, it falls short of solving the industry's larger ethical concerns about modern slavery.

Australia Bay Seafoods understands the need to remove itself from suppliers that engage in modern slavery practices by taking modest internal action. This coincides with the requirement not to be involved in such unethical practices and reflects an organization's commitment to following ethical standards. It does not, however, adequately address the systemic concerns of modern slavery, nor does it address the organization's role to encourage good change in the sector.

Consequentialist Perspective

Taking limited internal action, from a consequentialist standpoint, can assist avoid immediate organizational risks and prospective bad repercussions. Australia Bay Seafoods eliminates its direct affiliation with such unethical acts by discontinuing to utilize the major supplier implicated in slavery-like practices (Vandergeest & Marschke, 2020). This can result in some advantages while minimizing possible harm to the organization.

For starters, by distancing itself from suppliers implicated in modern slavery, the organization may prevent the reputational harm and unfavorable public impression that comes with supporting exploitative practices. Customers, financiers, and other users may perceive the organization favorably because of its opposition to modern slavery.

Second, discontinuing the usage of the provider can help to reduce legal risks and probable legal penalties. Being part of modern slavery practices can result in legal responsibilities, penalties, and legal action depending on the jurisdiction (Vijeyarasa, 2020). Taking modest internal action can assist the organization in avoiding or minimizing legal penalties and costs.

It is crucial to emphasize, however, that this strategy may be perceived as a reflexive and inadequate response. It does not solve the industry's underlying concerns of modern slavery or contribute to a lasting shift. Australia Bay Seafood may not completely achieve its consequentialist obligation to promote ethical practices and prevent modern slavery by simply discontinuing the usage of the supplier.

Scenario 3: Take Substantial Visible Action

Deontological Perspective

From a deontological standpoint, Australia Bay Seafoods has an ethical responsibility not only to rectify its primary supplier's modern slavery practices but also to take significant visible action in eliminating modern slavery across the industry (Bishop, 2021). Scenario 3 advises that the organization publishes a voluntary declaration on its website, collaborates with the supplier in enhancing their practices, attends contemporary slavery forums, and strives to distinguish itself from rivals as an organization that actively confronts slavery.

Australia Bay Seafoods fulfills its responsibility to promote openness, cooperation, and beneficial change by submitting a voluntary report and actively interacting with stakeholders (Christ, Rao & Burritt, 2019). As the organization takes real efforts to solve the issue and avoid future occurrences, this method conforms with the ideals of equity, fairness, and reverence for human rights.

Consequentialist Perspective

Taking significant visible action can help Australia Bay Seafoods' reputation as well as its operations. The firm may improve its image as a company and attract ethically concerned clients by distinguishing itself from rivals as an organization that actively confronts slavery (Christ, Rao & Burritt, 2019). Consumers are growing more worried about the ethical practices of the firms they support, and engaging in visible action to combat modern slavery may help to create consumer confidence and loyalty.

Working with the major supplier to enhance their practices can also provide long-term operational advantages. Australia Bay Seafoods may help to a more environmentally friendly and accountable supply chain by working with suppliers to develop ethical policies and practices (Fogarty et al., 2019). This can improve the organization's supply network's resilience and dependability, lowering the risk of future interruptions and maintaining the availability of responsibly sourced items.

Working in current slavery forums and interacting with other stakeholders displays the company's commitment to tackling modern slavery's underlying concerns. This may lead to stronger connections with stakeholders including suppliers, consumers, and advocacy organizations, as well as contribute to overall efforts to prevent modern slavery.

Scenario 4: Take Industry Leadership

Deontological Perspective

Australia Bay Seafoods, as an industry leader, has a moral obligation not merely to confront the causes and repercussions of slavery in the supply chain it operates in, but also to take serious long-term action (Lindley, Percy & Techera, 2019). Scenario 4 proposes that the organization willingly presents a report to the government, takes significant action throughout the chain of custody, and advocates for change in a variety of places.

Australia Bay Seafoods fulfills its commitment to promote openness, accountability, and responsible practices by voluntarily providing a report to the government and completing the complete process described in the Modern Slavery Act, even though it is not legally obligated to do so (Bishop, 2021). As the organization takes proactive actions to confront modern slavery while also contributing to its abolition, this strategy resonates with ideals of fairness, equity, and regard for human rights.

Consequentialist Perspective

Taking the lead in combating modern slavery practices may have a hugely beneficial impact on Australia Bay seafood and the industry (Provencio, 2022). The organization can create systemic change that will lead to a healthier and more sustainable seafood supply chain by investing significant resources into the future and tackling the causes and repercussions of modern slavery.

Taking significant action along the supply chain, such as creating rules and processes and developing the skills of vendors and their employees, can result in actual advantages (Vijeyarasa, 2020). It decreases the possibility of modern slavery practices, guarantees compliance with legal duties, and improves the organization's ethical and long-term performance.

Australia Bay Seafoods may contribute to larger efforts to eliminate modern slavery by championing action in numerous places, including as a sponsor of industry conferences, partnering with advocacy organizations, and sharing best practices (Haas, Phillipov & Gale, 2020). This may develop stakeholder connections while also enhancing the organization's position as an ethical leader.

Australia Bay Seafoods set a standard for other organizations in the sector by assuming industry leadership, pushing them to take suit and embrace ethical practices (Paterson & Veth, 2020). This concerted effort has the potential to revolutionize the whole seafood supply chain by cultivating a culture of ethical procurement and responsible business practices.


The proposed course of action for Australia Bay Seafoods is based on a detailed investigation from both deontological and deterministic viewpoints. 

Scenario 4: Take Industry Leadership.


Deontological Perspective

Scenario 4 corresponds to the organization's moral obligation to address the root causes and repercussions of slavery today in its supply chain (Sinclair et al., 2022). Australia Bay Seafoods fulfills its duty to promote openness, reliability, and responsible practices by voluntarily providing a report to the government, taking significant action throughout the supply chain, and promoting action in multiple forums. 

The deontological perspective emphasizes the necessity of proactive steps to fight modern slavery and contribute to its abolition (Vandergeest & Marschke, 2020). Scenario 4 indicates a commitment to fairness, equity, and human rights by adopting long-term action that goes beyond simple compliance.

Consequentialist Perspective

  • Taking industry leadership, as proposed in Scenario 4, can result in significant positive outcomes for Australia Bay Seafoods and the seafood industry.
  •  Allocating essential long-term resources to address the root causes and repercussions of modern slavery can drive systemic change, lowering the risk of modern slavery practices and improving the organization's sustainable and ethical performance.
  • Acting in numerous venues adds to larger efforts to prevent modern slavery, develop collaboration, and share best practices. This joint effort has the potential to alter the seafood supply chain by supporting ethical purchasing and responsible business practices throughout the sector.
  • The research supports the notion that adopting industrial leadership in solving contemporary slavery is additionally ethically responsible, but also profitable. Consumers are increasingly valuing ethical practices and responsible supply chains, which leads to improved brand image, client devotion, and competitive advantage.


I assess my personal beliefs and ethical position concerning contemporary slavery as I consider the proposed situation for Australia Bay Seafoods, Scenario 4: Take Industry Leadership. I am extremely opposed to any type of exploitation and feel that modern slavery must be eliminated from supply chains. From this vantage point, I agree with Scenario 4's deontological and consequentialist reasons.

However, it is critical to recognize that what I happen to endorse may not necessarily be what is most advantageous to the organization or business. This can be difficult when my viewpoint disagrees with the suggested course of action. Some of the difficulties that may occur include:

  1. Emotional Conflict: An emotional conflict may exist between my ideals and the choice to devote considerable time, money, and effort to addressing current slavery. It might be frustrating to see the scope of the issue and the gradual progress toward eradication.
  2. Personal Bias: Recognise and correct any personal biases that may distort judgment. As a person, I may have preconceived assumptions or preferences that impact my view of the suggested scenario. Personal biases must be distinguished from factual analysis and decision-making.
  3. Ethical Dilemma: Deviating from the approved scenario may result in an ethical quandary in which I must balance my convictions with the needs and duties of the organization. It might be difficult to strike a compromise between personal values and organizational aims.

To overcome these problems, it is critical to acquire a professional attitude and focus on the bigger picture. Here are some techniques for overcoming these obstacles

  1. Mindfulness: Maintain an open mind to other points of view and engage in meaningful discourse with teammates and stakeholders. Actively listen to many points of view to obtain a deeper grasp of the difficulties involved.
  2. Seek More Information: Constantly educate oneself on contemporary slavery practices, ethical issues, and industry best practices. By remaining educated, I can make informed judgments that consider both my own beliefs and the aims of the organization.
  3. Ethical Advocacy: Using my organizational position to speak out for ethical practices and the necessity of combating contemporary slavery. To align with personal beliefs, raise awareness among coworkers, participate in initiatives, and offer changes to supply chain operations.
  4. Continuous Reflection: Reflect on personal beliefs, ethical attitudes, and their connection with organizational aims regularly. Evaluate the possible influence of my stance on choices and identify opportunities for personal development and improvement.

By actively dealing with these issues, I can guarantee that my personal beliefs and ethical viewpoint are honored while simultaneously considering the organization's best interests. It necessitates a careful balance of personal principles and professional obligations to effect good change inside the organization and the sector as a whole. 


Bishop, J. (2021). Human trafficking and modern slavery: need for action. The Round Table110(6), 720-727. 

Christ, K. L., Rao, K. K., & Burritt, R. L. (2019). Accounting for modern slavery: an analysis of Australian listed company disclosures. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal

Fogarty, H. E., Cvitanovic, C., Hobday, A. J., & Pecl, G. T. (2019). Prepared for change? An assessment of the current state of knowledge to support climate adaptation for Australian fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries29, 877-894. 

Haas, B., Phillipov, M., & Gale, F. (2020). Media representations of seafood certification in Australia: Mobilising sustainability standards to attack or defend the value of an industry. Marine Policy120, 104126.

Lindley, J., Percy, S., & Techera, E. (2019). Illegal fishing and Australian security. Australian Journal of International Affairs73(1), 82-99.  

Paterson, A., & Veth, P. (2020). The point of pearling: Colonial pearl fisheries and the historical translocation of Aboriginal and Asian workers in Australia’s Northwest. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology57, 101143.  

Provencio, C. (2022). Deontological Ethics, Naomi Osaka, and the 2021 French Open: A Teaching Case Study for Deontological Ethics. Sport Management Education Journal16(2), 175-182. 

Sinclair, A., Dinshaw, F., Nolan, J., Marshall, S., Zirnsak, M., Adams, K., ... & Moore, H. (2022). Paper Promises? Evaluating the early impact of Australia's Modern Slavery Act. 

Vandergeest, P., & Marschke, M. (2020). Modern slavery and freedom: Exploring contradictions through labour scandals in the Thai fisheries. Antipode52(1), 291-315. 

Vijeyarasa, R. (2020). Women, work and global supply chains: The gender-blind nature of Australia’s modern slavery regulatory regime. Australian Journal of Human Rights26(1), 74-92.