For Sanlu, melamine in their powdered milk could not have been found at a worse time. The stakeholders affected by the scandal were primarily Sanlu executives, suppliers, farmers, and operators of the milk collection stations and were ordered not to spread any news about the scandal. Fonterra, the largest trader of dairy products and Sanlu’s partner, is also considered a major stakeholder, but Sanlu shared the information of melamine with them. Sanlu and Fonterra took five weeks to decide what to do to avoid a major scandal, after which Fonterra recalled all their milk products (Mooney, 2008). However, Sanlu refused to do so in fear of ruining the company’s reputation, risking many infants’ lives (Mooney, 2008). It took New Zealand’s government’s intervention for the Chinese company to admit contamination and recall the products (Mooney, 2008). As a result, more than fifty thousand children have been diagnosed with kidney stones, while four have died, according to the known statistics (Mooney, 2008). Thus, Sanlu cannot be considered a socially responsible corporation.
Sanlu’s milk contamination scandal negatively affected many other parties as well. Since one of the reasons behind melamine’s usage for powder milk is the cap on prices, the government can also be blamed and criticized for the incident (Mooney, 2008). The government’s pressure also caused a delay in the recall of the products. Most milk suppliers who traded with Fonterra and Sanlu suffered significant losses in the process; some of them were arrested for adding melamine. The shareholders of Sanlu and Fonterra pressured the companies to keep quiet since they would lose all the money if the news of the contamination spread (Mooney, 2008). The media did not participate in investigating the stories of sick children due to the government’s ban on any negative news and reports that might affect the Olympics. The case of tainted milk provides evidence of how media can be pressed in manipulating crucial information flow.