I can see the rock-and-a-hard-place of the perspective you're taking - truly I can.
But I also think that if you're subcontracting some element of your operations to a third party, then you still do have the ultimate responsibility over the quality of the service they're providing.
In my line of work - where I/we regularly subcontract packages of work out to external entities - if it was shown that one of those third parties had fallen short of their agreements that it would be "me" ("me" in the loose sense of the word in that it would be "the company I work for") who would be ultimately be responsible to the customer/client for that shortcoming. The customer/client has recourse against "me" as the one providing the service to them. If I subsequently take action against the subcontractor, that's not the customer/client's concern.
It might not be Merlin's fault (from a root cause perspective), but it is Merlin's problem in the first instance. It's surely Merlin's responsibility to check and 'audit' (for lack of a better word) their subcontractors to deliver on their agreements?
Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the point you're making...? More than happy to be educated in this - I'm applying an engineering consultant's view to a service industry problem - maybe the approach is different?
Nope, you understand, and you're spot on. I never, at any point suggested that Merlin had nothing to answer to, I simply said they may not have been aware. (And, at the risk of repeating myself, my information there may even be out of date.)
However, in this context, I do think that the hospitality and retail sector is a little different to your sector. As an extreme example, probably too far at the other end of the scale from your contractor example, but here goes anyway... If a shop is selling faulty products, you don't place all of the blame on the shopping center / mall? Likewise if a restaurant is making people ill, you don't blame the food court.
You do expect the food court / mall to take action and evict / intervene if their tenants are bringing their own business / space into disrepute though. Once they are aware.
That's what Merlin parks have become these days, malls and food courts... They rent out the space, other companies provide the service and product... Food, drink, midway games, even entertainment nowadays, all subbed out.
I don't mean to excuse them, because it's still ultimately their choice to operate like this, and customers won't necessarily know any different. To many, bad food at Alton Towers is purely the fault of Alton Towers, not Aramark... A prize from a stall at Thorpe Park that falls apart is the fault of Thorpe Park, not HBL Leisure... Customers don't know or care about the ins and outs of any contractual arrangements, and nor should they... So ultimately, it falls at Merlin's feet... But what I was saying, and I still am, is that Merlin 'may not' have been aware, and the real test is how they deal with things like this when they are made aware...
...Anyway... Maybe the OOD stock was just being trialled
Also, as another aside, Schweppes only uses best before dates. It's perfectly legal and safe to sell products past their best before dates. Best before dates are a guarantee of quality up until that date, not an indication of food safety at all. In retail the retailer must inform the customer of the date before they make the decision to buy, then the customer assumes responsibility for the quality of the product. In catering / hospitality, that isn't the case, the chef / management / staff make the decision on quality, and assume that responsibility. It's still very very bad practice though, it's underhand, and most customers would neither understand, or appreciate it, if they were to find this to be the case. I only mention it as many people are not aware of the difference between best before and use by.
It is important to understand best before and use-by dates on food labels to keep food safe and to help reduce food waste. Food may contain bacteria, and if stored for too long or at the wrong temperature can cause food poisoning.
www.food.gov.uk
Again, not defending them, I'd never use food past it's best before in my own food business, purely because I know how people would feel about it... But I'm just playing devils advocate and trying to ensure this kind of information is known.
You're 100% right to question somebody you see as blindly defending a giant corporation, especially one that rarely seems to have it's customer's best interests at heart. Just as it's right to call out anybody who goes the other way and is obsessively over-critical of everything a company does, like they have some ulterior motive.