A reputed Indian beauty and personal care company developed a herbal skin cream for the international market, claiming anti-ageing and skin-repair properties based on traditional Ayurvedic formulations. After gaining necessary approvals and export certifications, the company began exporting and marketing the product in international markets. Riding on this success, the company announced that the product would soon be made available to domestic consumers, with almost the same quality and health benefits. Subsequently, it secured approval from the domestic regulatory authority and launched the product in the Indian market. The brand gained a significant share of the domestic market and earned lucrative financial gains both nationally and internationally. However, during a random sample check, officials discovered that the cream sold in India differed significantly from the version approved by the competent authority. The product failed to meet the claimed herbal composition and safety standards. Further investigation revealed that the company had often been discarding batches that had failed export quality checks. Following batches that had failed export quality checks with official stamp led to a sharp decline in the company's reputation and financial performance.

Continuation of case study analysis focusing on herbal cream regulatory issues, quality standards compliance, and implications for public trust in regulatory mechanisms and corporate accountability.

The case depicts lack of ethical capitalism and focus on profitability over consumer rights. The company prioritized export market over domestic consumers. Stakeholders include the company, domestic regulatory authority, international market, society at large, regulatory authority.

Ethical Issues: (1) Treating humans Consumer as ends for profit motive against Deontology. (2) Biased judgment of domestic consumer against fair practices principle. (3) Start from profit against long-term credibility & reputation. (4) Human rights & gracing violated. Ethical issues: a Creating human Consumer as ends for profit motive against Deontology. b Biased judgment of domestic consumer against fair practices principle. c Start from profit against long-term credibility & reputation. d Human rights & gracing violated. In the office as a formal weapon against duty often. e Mediator. r Balance of public duty & personal life by differentiating time for each. g Piety time. (3) Being meditated towards larger social good (Utilitarianism ethic) will give sense of fulfillment. (4) Sharing of responsibility by male counterpart ensuring care & nursing equal. (5) Public policy for child-care facility like crèches at workplaces. g Infirm.

Actions that should be taken by regulatory authority: (1) Immediate seizing of the batches & produce with discarded quality code. Cordoning) (2) Penalization of company & Board of Directors. (3) Checking of other product as well for full disclosure & transparency. (4) Create a SOP for future similar case for former similar case to other companies as well. (5) Legal notice to the 'Ready' for giving statement of truth. (6) Comparability to the affected consumer in line with extended producer responsibility. c 'Courier action by the company': a Handle the crisis. b Call back all the degraded quality product. c Showcase the morality team involved in this incident. d Internal scrutiny & penalty of staff. e Restore public trust & credibility.