Can someone please give me their input on the below.

I have extracted a piece of information from 'Leon Restaurant' from their website about their social corporate responsibilities.

The statement says:

'we started the process of removing nitrates in our chorizo (pork sausages). We worked with our supplier to produce a natural choir which fits in with our values of ingredients and taste. It took a lot of time but we got their in the end.
It is lower in salt than its commercial housing. It contains only 6 ingredients: pork, garlic, cayenne, paprika and salt. They are baked rather than fried before putting on customer's dish'.

would this be a ethical responsibility or philanthropic responsibility?

I would have thought it may be philanthropic as they are going out their way to improve quality of food for their customers.
But then again, could it be an ethical responsibility to keep up with their values of using fair trade organic products which is one of their aims, thus removing nitrate from their sausages, they are obliged to do what is right and fair, avoiding any harm to their customers.

Please can someone help me.

Thank you

You posted this under Distance Learning. Is this a homework question?

Yes this is a homework question. I am not asking for the answer. I have provided my answer in which I believe could be true, I just wanted to get some input on the answer I provided. It is just a brief one which I will of course amend and add more to.

Does it have to be one or the other? Can it be both? If so, which would come first?

Could it be both, and a marketing strategy to impress the health nuts?

And a marketing strategy to plump up the restaurant's bottom line?

Ethical only. If the owner feels that nitrates are bad, but the gov't hasn't done enough about it, then he is doing what he thinks is right.
Not charitable. Healthy food sells, and presumably he knows that, and charges what he needs to make a profit, not give it away.

(PS - you are supposed to give us your speculation first.)