Transcript Multiple-Objective and Multiple

Multiple-Objective and
Multiple-Stakeholder Decision Making
The StarKist Tuna Fishing Decision
Stakeholders
StarKist Tuna Co. (Primary Stakeholder)
Bumblebee Tuna & Chicken of the Sea (Competitors)
Consumers (Buyers)
San Diego Tuna Fishing Fleet (Suppliers)
TV, Press, etc. (Media)
Earth Island Institute, etc. (Special Interest Groups)
Background References: Monika I. Winn (University of Victoria, British Columbia) and L. Robin Keller,
“A Modeling Methodology for Multi-Objective Multi-Stakeholder Decisions: Implications for Research,"
Journal of Management Inquiry, vol. 10, no. 2, June 2001, 166-181. StarKist homepage:
http://www.starkist.com/; Earth Island Institute homepage: http://www.earthisland.org
Warren Beatty,
Heaven Can Wait, 1978
"What if we had a
good-guy tuna company that was on the ((dolphin))
team?
A lot of these guys would buy that, so their kids wouldn't
get mad at them, right?
And if it costs too much, we charge a penny more.
We make it part of the game plan.”
“Tuna Without The Guilt,” Time magazine, MONDAY, APR. 23, 1990
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,969934,00.html?iid=chix-sphere
Video: Where Have All the Dolphins Gone? The untold story of dolphin slaughter-and
the shameful coverup, narrated by George C. Scott, copyright 1990, Marine Mammal
Fund, Ft. Mason Center, Bldg. E, SF, CA 94123
DECISION ALTERNATIVES
Legal Quota
Maintain current practices and stay within legal limits
Limited Mortality
Step up efforts to reduce the number of dolphins killed
Zero-Mortality
No fishing associated with setting nets on dolphins
StarKist’s Dolphin Safe Policy
From the 1991 StarKist Dolphin-Safe Brochure:
"StarKist will not buy any tuna caught in association with
dolphins in the Eastern Tropical Pacific."
STARKIST CASE BACKGROUND
This supplementary page provides background on the widely publicized and controversial strategic
decision by StarKist Tuna Company to provide only "dolphin-safe" tuna to its customers. StarKist Tuna
Company was the market share leader with almost forty percent of U.S. tuna fish sales in 1990. StarKist's
main competitors were Bumblebee Tuna and Chicken-of-the-Sea. These three companies dominated the
U.S. market with a combined market share of about eighty percent.
At issue was a tuna fishing method which is feasible only in the Eastern Tropical Pacific, extending from
Chile to California along the west coast of the American continent. In this area, schools of dolphins tend
to swim with, or above, schools of yellow-fin tuna, for unknown reasons. This peculiar association
between tuna and dolphin has resulted in the development of a fishing method referred to as "setting nets
on dolphins," which uses dolphins as signs that tuna are nearby.
In the 1960's, so-called "purse seine nets" were introduced and they soon replaced traditional long-line
methods. These nets were released by high-tech fishing boats to encircle a suspected catch of tuna.
Once deployed, the bottom was pulled shut with cables acting like purse-strings - hence the name. This
fishing method was very effective and yielded rich catches. However, in the process of encircling and
netting the tuna, dolphins were also captured in the nets, and were either killed outright or, in cases of
incidental killing, were injured, suffocated or crushed. One estimate puts the number of dolphins killed
since the 1960's at six million.
Legislation introduced by the United States in the 1970's progressively limited the legal number of
dolphins killed during tuna fishing. Annual quotas of "incidental kills" were reduced from an initial
number of 78,000 in the 1970's to 20,500 in the eighties. The fishing boats tried many different
approaches to reduce the number of dolphins killed, including chasing dolphins out of the net before
hauling the catch aboard.
The tuna industry is a highly competitive industry with very tight profit margins. Any operational changes
to protect dolphins considered at the time were likely to result in higher costs to the canners.
Additionally, consumers of canned tuna tend to be very price-conscious, making it difficult to pass higher
fishing costs on to the end-user by increasing the price of a can of tuna. Thus, the case is a prime
example of a strategic decision requiring tradeoffs between economic and environmental values.
The Multiple Stakeholder
Decision Evolution Modeling Method
STEP 1. Find Sources
Identify Stakeholders
Identify Decision Makers
Identify Other Data Sources
STEP 2. Find Data
Identify Decision Timeline
Identify Alternatives
Identify Objectives
Identify Possible Events
Identify Alternative Chosen
STEP 3. Model Decision Frame
Timeline
Determine Decision Phases
Determine Key Decision Elements in Each Phase
Develop Decision Frame Timeline
STEP 4. Model Objectives Hierarchies
Identify Objectives of Different Stakeholders
Model Trees for Main Stakeholders
Model Multiple Trees for Primary Stakeholder
STEP 5. Validate Timeline
and Objectives Hierarchies
Ask Decision Makers
Ask Other Stakeholders
Check Consistency With Available Information
STEP 6. Evaluate Decision Process
Score Alternatives with Objectives Hierarchies
Compare Choice with Other Alternatives
TABLE 1.
TABLE 1. Decision Decision
Alternatives
Rated with StarKist’s
Alternatives Rated with
“Business-As-Usual”
Objectives
StarKist’s "Business-As-Usual"
ObjectivesHierarchy
Hierarchy
MAXIMIZE PROFIT
B1. Minimize Cost
B1.1. Minimize Cost of Tuna
B1.2. Minimize Cost of Canning Operations
B1.3. Minimize Cost of Transportation Logistics
B1.4. Maximize Quality of Tuna and Operations
B2. Maximize Revenue
B2.1. Maintain and Expand Brand Loyalty
B2.2. Increase Customers w/ Differentiated Product Line
B3. Optimize Industry Competitive Position
B3.1. Capture "First Mover" Advantages
B3.2. Hold Market Share Leadership
B4. Minimize Legal and Regulatory Interference
B4.1. Minimize Legal Liabilities
B4.2. Minimize Regulatory Intervention
B5. Maintain Favorable Stakeholder Relations
B5.1. Maintain Good Supplier Relations
B5.2. Maintain Good Shareholder and Banking Relations
B5.3. Maintain Good Relations to Corporate Headquarters
B6. Maintain Reputation as "Good Corporate Citizen"
Decision Alternatives
Keep
Reduce
Go
Status
Dolphin
Dolphin
Quo
Mortality
Safe
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
?
?
0
?
+
?
?
0
?
+
?
?
-
0
-
0
+
+
?
?
-
0
?
?
-
?
?
+
Key for Rating Alternative’s Performance on Objective: "+": favorable
"0": neutral or balanced
"-": unfavorable "?": insufficient information
TABLE 2. Decision Alternatives Rated for Environmental
TABLE 2. Decision Alternatives
Rated
for Environmental Interest Groups
Interest
Groups
Objectives Hierarchy
PROTECT MARINE MAMMALS
E1. Stop Killing of Dolphins
E1.1. Protect Intelligent Large Marine Mammals
E1.2. Protect Species from Extinction
E2. Stop Cruelty to Dolphins
E2.1. Prevent Herding by Helicopter & Detonations
E2.2. Prevent Harm from Entangling
E3. Generate Positive Public Image for Cause
E3.1. Maximize Favorable Media Coverage
E3.2. Generate Positive Public Sentiment
E4. Improve Prestige of Special Interest Group
E4.1. Increase Financial Support
E4.2. Gain Support from Celebrity Spokespersons
Decision Alternatives
Keep
Reduce
Go
Status
Dolphin
Dolphin
Quo
Mortality
Safe
?
+
-
?
+
+
-
?
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
?
+
?
?
+
+
TABLE 3. Decision Alternatives Rated for Fishing Fleet
TABLE 3. Decision Alternatives Rated for Fishing Fleet
Objectives Hierarchy
MAINTAIN VIABLE BUSINESS
F1. Maintain Profitability
F1.1. Maintain Lucrative Fishing Grounds
F1.2. Maintain Lucrative Fishing Methods
F1.3. Avoid Foreign Competition
F2. Maintain Livelihood
F2.1. Maintain Fishing Grounds in East. Tropical Pacific
F2.2. Protect Large Investments in Boats
F2.3. Prevent Fishing Grounds from Depletion
F3. Maintain Quality of Life in Local Community
F3.1. Protect Family-Owned Small Businesses & Heritage
F3.2. Maintain Positive Image in Community
F4. Protect Positive Image as Good Global Citizen
F4.1. Legitimate Fishing Methods involving Dolphins
F4.2. Publicize Successes in Reducing Dolphin Mortality
Decision Alternatives
Keep
Reduce
Go
Status
Dolphin
Dolphin
Quo
Mortality
Safe
+
+
+
+
+
+
?
?
-
+
+
?
+
+
+
-
+
?
+
+
+
?
0
0
+
+
TABLE
4. StarKist's "Strategic
Planning" Objectives Hierarchy
TABLE 4. StarKist’s
“Strategic
Planning”
Objectives Hierarchy
Objectives Hierarchy
MAXIMIZE PROFIT
Keep
Status
Quo
?
Decision Alternatives
Reduce
Go
Dolphin
Dolphin Safe
Mortality
?
+
S1. Minimize Operational Changes and Restrictions
S1.1. Manage Profit-Related Changes
+
+
-
S1.1.1 Minimize Restrictions on Fishing Territory
+
+
-
S1.1.2 Maintain Yield
+
+
?
S1.2.1 Maintain Control over Distant Fleet
+
+
-
S1.2.2 Minimize Strain on Relations with Local Fleet
+
+
-
+
?
+
-
+
?
+
-
+
?
+
?
?
?
?
-
?
?
?
?
?
+
?
+
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
?
?
+
+
+
+
?
?
?
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
-
?
+
S1.2. Maintain Good Supplier Relations
S2. Maintain Firm Profitability
S2.1. Minimize Cost (closely related to S1.1.)
S2.2. Maintain Revenue Stream
S2.2.1. Hold Tuna Price Down
S2.2.2. Avoid Boycotts of Canned Tuna
S3. Maintain Favorable Industry Competitive Position
S3.1. Remain Market Share Leader
S3.1.1. Hold Leadership Position
S3.1.2. Lead Industry on Pricing and Policy
S3.1.3. Hold Leadership-Related Brand Loyalty
S3.2. Capture “First-Mover” Advantages
S3.2.1. Set Industry Standard on Dolphin Policy
S3.2.2. Maximize Positive Media Coverage
S3.2.3. Maintain Profit Margin with Higher Price
S4. Minimize Government Regulation
S4.1. Minimize Regulation-Induced Cost Increases
S4.2. Minimize Constraints on Managerial Discretion
S4.2.1. Avoid Compliance or Forced Reactive Mode
S4.2.2. Avoid Regulation-Related Bureaucracy
S5. Improve Firm Reputation & Public Perception
S5.1. Enhance Image of “Good Corporate Citizen”
S5.1.1. Maximize Goodwill
S5.2.2. Ensure Perceived Legitimacy (Firm & Industry)
S5.2. Avoid Negative Press
S5.3. Minimize Uncertainty from Regulation
S6. Minimize Impact on Marine Life
S6.1. Minimize Short Term Impact
TABLE 5. StarKist’s “Crisis Mode”
TABLE 5. StarKist's "Crisis Mode"
Objectives
Hierarchy
Objectives Hierarchy
Objectives Hierarchy
ENSURE FIRM SURVIVAL
C1. Sustain Profitability
C1.1. Maintain Favorable Industry Competitive Position
C1.1.1 Maintain Viable Cost Structure
C1.1.2 Maintain Revenue Stream
C1.2. Ensure Technological and Operational Feasibility
C2. Minimize Interference from Government Regulation
C2.1. Minimize Regulation-Induced Cost Increases
C2.2. Minimize Constraints on Managerial Discretion
C3. Maintain Organizational Legitimacy
C3.1. Maintain Image as "Good Corporate Citizen”
C3.1.1. Maximize Environmental Citizenship Image
C3.1.2. Maximize Social Citizenship Image
C3.2. Minimize Negative Perception at Critical Events
C3.2.1. Minimize Negative Environmental Perception
C3.2.2. Minimize Perception of Negative Social Impact
Decision Alternatives
Keep
Reduce
Go
Status
Dolphin
Dolphin
Quo
Mortality
Safe
?
+
+
+
+
+
?
+
?
?
+
?
-
+
?
+
+
-
?
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
?
FIGURE 1. StarKist’s Decision Frame Timeline
TIME PHASE
OBJECTIVES
HIERARCHIES
ALTERNATIVES
(& RANKINGS)
PROBLEM
RECOGNITION
Table 1.
StarKist’s
Bus.-as-Usual O.H.
ACTUAL
EVENTS
POSSIBLE
EVENTS
3rd
Status Quo (SQ) ?
SQ
Ltd.Mortality (LM) ?
Dolphin Safe (DS) ?
LM
2
DS
1
FOR
STAKEHOLDER
POWER-URGENCYLEGITIMACY
(P-U-L) OF
STAKEHOLDERS
W/STARKIST
Table 2.
Env. Groups’
O.H.
For
StarKist
Env.
Fishing
nd
st
For
Env. Groups
Groups
Fleet
Env.
Groups
P-U-L
P-U-L
P-U-L
Video of Dolphin
Kills in Tuna
Fishing;
Consumer Letter
Writing Campaign
Boycott Threat
PROBLEM
CLARIFICATION
DECISION
MAKING
Table 3.
Fishing
Fleet’s O.H.
Table 5.
StarKist’s
Crisis Mode O.H.
1st ?
SQ
nd
LM
2 ?
DS
3
rd
Table 4.
SK’s Strategic
Planning O.H.
SQ
3rd
LM
2 ?
DS
1 ?
For
Fishing Fleet
nd
st
For
StarKist
Fishing
Fleet
P-U-L
Meetings with Env. Groups;
Meetings with Fishing Fleet;
StarKist Executives’ Closed Door Meetings
Competitors Might Move First;
Threat of Regulation
3rd
SQ
nd
LM
2
DS
1
st
For
StarKist
Env.
Groups
Fishing
Fleet
P-U-L
P-U-L
StarKist chooses
Dolphin Safe Option;
Announcement: Week
before Earth Day II,
April 1990
Figure 2. Examples of Linkages between Objectives in StarKist’s Strategic
Planning Objectives Hierarchy and Objectives Hierarchies of
Environmental Groups and Fishing Fleet
Fishing Fleet
Maintain Viable Business
F1
F1.1 F1.2
S1.1.1
F2
F1.3
F3
F2.1 F2.2
F2.3
S1.2.1
S1.2.2
S1.1.2
S1.1
S1: Min. Operational
Environmental Groups
Protect Marine Mammals
E1
F4
F4.1
S6.1.1
S6.1
S3
E3
E4
F4.2
S1.2
S2
E2
S4
Changes & Restrictions
S5
S6.1.2
S6.2.1
S6.2.2
S6.2.3
S6.2
S6: Min. Impact
on Marine Life
StarKist
Strategic Planning Tree
Maximize Profit