Ethics and Corporate Responsibility in the Workplace and the World

1: Describe the key characteristics of a stakeholder and determine all the stakeholders within the PharmaCARE scenario.

Stakeholders of a typical organization might include employees, customers, investors, suppliers, and managers (Phillips, 2003). There are several characteristics of a stakeholder of a company, among which include the following. First is that a stakeholder characteristic of a stakeholder is that he/she in one way or the other funds the organization through investing in it. He/she is thus affected by the outcomes or results of the company’s progress or the success or failures of the organization’s projects. Another key characteristic of a stakeholder is that he/she is in the company’s chain of accountability. Decisions made by the company’s officials may affect them directly or indirectly (Phillips, 2003). He/she is also responsible for the company’s good name. He/she is thus responsible for maintaining the company’s good reputation. Among the stakeholders of the PharmaCARE are the CEO, rest of the PharmaCARE’s executives and its Shareholders/stockholders of the enterprise. Others include the healers of the company in Colberia, the Colberians that work for PharmaCARE, the state government of New Jersey, the US Federal government and the communities affected by the lobbying of PharmaCARE.

The following is a justification of why some of the agencies or groups are considered stakeholders of PharmaCARE. One example is the state government in New Jersey. This is a stakeholder since its interested with PharmaCARE describing the state laws are regulations that PharmaCARE is required to comply with, e.g. paying taxes. Similarly, the federal government relates in the same way with PharmaCARE.The healers in Colberia can be considered close stakeholders with PharmaCARE since the facility obtains local remedies from them and possibly markets them. PharmaCARE has also been involved actively in lobbying against many environmental laws. This action has in many ways adversely affected the environment of the United States. It is from this perspective that every citizen of the United States and the federal government of the US become stakeholders of PharmaCARE (Phillips, 2003).

Q2: Analyze the human rights issues presented by PharmaCARE’s treatment of the Colberia’s indigenous population versus that of its executives. Recommend at least three (3) changes PharmaCARE can make to be more ethical going forward.

Various human rights issues arise as regards the running of corporations in the world. It has been determined that many corporations today are expanding their business enterprises. However, they are doing so by erecting branches at less regulated poorer countries where they have the power and audacity of violating human rights in many ways such as polluting the environment through harmful emissions and cutting down trees (Ingulli, 2010). To aggravate the situation, they do so with the cooperation of that countries government, by bribing the top officials. In any case, these corporations’ branches are set up businesses places where the local indigenous people are poor and living in less than standard conditions. The corporations will thus earn labor from less resistance indigenous people who they pay meager wages, another violation of human rights.

An assessment of PharmaCARE case shows prudently that the human rights of the people of Colberia’s have been violated, as regards the United Nations stipulation. This UN disclaimer applied, in this case, says that Transnational Corporations, as well as business Enterprises, have a general obligation to the indigenous people of Colberia. Along with it is the right to equal opportunity and non-discriminatory treatment of the local people (Brenker, 2010). In black and white, it’s evident that PharmaCARE has exploited the people of Colberia in the bid to further its own agenda. For instance, they have taken advantage of the local healers who have been lured into sharing their knowledge about indigenous cures just for free. In another dimension, the workers are reported to be paid meager wages ($1 per day), which make them live in substandard conditions as compared to PharmCARE staff who live lavishly at the expense of local people. These poor people reside in huts which have neither electricity nor clean water. Conversely, their ‘employers’ the executives of PharmaCARE, are living luxuriously in compounds which have access to all essential amenities requires to live a good life and added prestigious amenities such as swimming pools, golf course, and tennis courts (Cory, 2001).

Going forward, I would recommend that PharmaCARE provides transportation means for the benefit of workers. These transportation means will help workers who live far from the premises and also aid in bringing harvested goods from the jungle to the processing area of the organization. That will increase efficiency and remove the burden and tire/exhaustion of employees. Secondly, I recommend that PharmaCARE increases the wages workers. Rather than a dollar per day, it’s ethical that they pay them the same amount hourly. That will help them better their living standards. Lastly, I would recommend that PharmCARE involves itself with corporate social responsibility. For instance, they could reinvest a little of their profits in enhancing Colberia’s current infrastructure. They could also create housing for the workers within the manufacturing plant to better their lives as some may never be able to erect better housing (Brenker, 2010).

Q3: Assess PharmCARE’s environmental initiative against the backdrop of its anti-environmental lobbying efforts and Colberian activities. Support the position

PharmaCARE instigated an initiative by the name We CARE about YOUR world®. This initiative pledges PharmaCARE commitment to the environment but ironically, the company’s lobbying efforts have successfully demeaned the environmental laws and regulations and that of the Superfund tax by CERCLA (Ingulli, 2010). This law imposed heavy taxes and fines on chemical and petroleum firms particularly those that release hazardous substances that jeopardize people and environmental health (Cory, 2001)Apparently, the activities of PharmaCARE in Colberia are seen to contradict their initiative staunchly. We CARE about YOUR world®. Obviously, the company does not care about Colberia and its people. The company distorts the previously fresh environmental and deplorably treats Colberian people. As a matter of fact, PharmaCARE has done nothing good for the benefit of the indigenous people. It has taken advantage of them without caring.

Q4: Decide whether or not PharmaCARE’s actions with respect to the indigenous people of Colberia would be ethical in accordance with each of the following ethical theories:

As defined by Shapiro (2011) as a normative ethical theory that distinguishes the right from the wrong solely by judging from the outcomes (consequences). Under this theory, PharmCARE’s activities are not ethical. If so, PharmaCARE actions would have caused happiness to the local people. However, dread is what Colberians suffer.

This theory obligates people to do as it obligates them when faced with an ethical dilemma. As such, a person ought to follow his/her obligation to another individual as doing this is what is considered ethically correct (Rainbow, 2002). Following this theory, PharmaCARE actions to the Colberia’s indigenous people cannot be regarded as morally right. The company exploits the indigenous people by paying them meager wages making them lead substandard lives (Cory, 2001).

Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics are those actions that one does for the good of another by following his/her instincts rather than laws, customs or culture. PharmaCARE officials are short of these virtues and as such, their actions are not ethically correct. Executives have no mercy to the poor people and does nothing keep them motivated for the job. They treat the employees like slaves. Lack of virtual ethics denies the company to be ranked an ethically run organization.

Ethics of care
Ethics of care requires that both parties in play gain something from common activities. However, PharmCARE takes advantage of everything to profit themselves (Brenker, 2010). Indigenous people sacrifice their efforts but end up on the losing side. They earn low wages, and their environment is destroyed (Cory, 2001).

My own moral/ethical compass

After examining the case, I am of the free opinion that PharmaCARE violates the civil rights of the people. They have taken the environment into their hands and made people their working objects. They have no respect for human life and expose them to danger through polluting the environment. They pay meager dues to these people just they are poor and have no power to demand fairness. PharmCARE has to reconsider their CRS status. The executives should understand that caring for the employees is for the best of it too. Employees are like engines of the company and motivating them is the same as re-energizing the engine which makes the vehicle move more swiftly to accomplish the desires of the owner (Brenker, 2010).

Q5: Compare PharmaCARE’s actions with those of at least one (1) real-world company, whose corporate activities led to ethical, environmental, or workplace safety issues and financial loss. Analyze the similarities and differences between PharmaCARE and the company that you chose.

The activities of PharmCARE are likened to those of British Petroleum Company BP sometimes back. British Petroleum was involved in a serious issue which involved spillage of over 30 gallons of crude oil, a situation that has come to be known as the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. In this case scenario, 11 lives were lost and some injured. The company had at the time not installed a back-up acoustic switch claiming that it was not cost-effective at the time. The oil spillage made the environment dangerous as people lived in fear of explosions. More so, the environment was polluted. Apparently, poor people had no means to pull out of the area, and BP did nothing about it. The same case applies to PharmaCARE scenario. They built a large manufacturing plant in Africa took away the land, polluted the environment and exploited the indigenous people just because they were poor, desperate and short of knowledge of their human rights. They work for a large company but under dangerous conditions. They work long hours yet receive unfair wages. They, however, are not aware of ways to demand their rights. Similarly, the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill led to the damage of countless miles of shoreline which made fishing impossible. Fish processors had to shut down meaning that the local people were left without means of securing the daily bread (Rainbow, 2002).

British Petroleum redesigned its corporate insignia of going green that suggested that “the company was looking past oil and gas toward an eco-friendly future of renewable energy.” That is just similar with what PharmaCARE initiated through erecting a logo which said “WE CARE about YOUR health®. These two logos of the two companies stated that they wanted to change and in future enjoy the reputation as caring, ethical and well-run companies through producing high-quality products that save lives and through environmental friendly ways (Ingulli, 2010). Comparing BP and PharmaCARE, it can be found that both ended up devolved into unethical practices. BP, for instance, failed to acquire equipment that would have doubled safety for the oil rig. Instead, BP officials claimed they did not need such equipment. They claimed that the cost of it was too much and following the fact that this was not a required by the government, they did not purchase it. The same case applies to PharmaCARE, which does not want to feel the cost of social responsibility. They use their large company status to acquire land in Africa to set up a plant at the expense of the little power of the indigenous people.