Ethics and corporate responsibility in the workplace and the world is becoming a center of attention. There are many things going on in the workplace that different agencies and people are looking into while placing the blame on the appropriate source. In this paper, a scenario is presented. The scenario involved PharmaCARE and its subsidiary, CompCARE are reviewed and certain questions are being asked for clarity. The paper will look at the stakeholders in this scenario. The paper will do it best to analyze the ethics of PharmaCARE’s treatment of the Colberia’s indigenous population and its rank-and –file workers versus that of its executives.
In additionally, the paper will look at the situation concerning three workers, Donna, Tom, and Ayesha under the supervision of Allen. The study of how whistleblowing, opportunities, and protection could help Allen stop the unethical of CompCare. An assessment of PharmaCARE’s environmental creativity with the Colberian activities. The paper will address the original purpose of and changes to Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The paper will now look at the shareholders in this scenario.
The shareholders are major players in an organization or corporation. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a “shareholder as one that holds or owns a share in a company” (Shareholder, 2013). A synonym of a shareholder is stakeholder and this is someone who has interest in the company. Therefore, the shareholders of this scenario are Allen, Donna, Ayesha, Tom, CompCARE, PharmaCARE, WellCo, and the Colberians. Allen, Donna, Ayesha, and Tom are employees of CompCARE. They are stakeholders in this scenario because they work for CompCARE and this is how they make their living. They want the company to be successful, but at what cost will it cost them.
The Colberians are the people who labor to make the drug, while getting paid $1.00 a day and living in poverty. PharmaCARE is the mother company of CompCARE and its goal is to profit off of CompCARE by any means necessary. WellCo brought the CompCARE from PharmaCARE seeing the profit it could make in this deal. Each shareholder plays a significant part in making sure the CompCARE is successful. The paper will now look analyze the ethics of PharmaCARE treatment of the Colberians.
PharmaCARE has a company in African and found people there willing to share information about local remedies and could supply workers willing to work for $1.00 a day. PharmaCARE probably look at this as a coal mine and struck the deal. This process is unethical in every way. One reason it is unethical, the employees at PharmaCARE is not working for a $1.00 a day wage nor are they living in primitive huts. The employees of PharmaCARE have electricity and running water while the Colberians do not get to enjoy this luxury. The World Trade Organization, WTO established guidelines concerning labor rights and standards. “Moreover, precisely because third world workers are terribly exploited, their employees will pass on much of the cost of improvements in labor standards achieved through international trade treaties to their employees in the form of lower wages” (Global Issues, 2013).
PharmaCARE knew the way it was treating the Colberians was not ethical; the company could not behave in this fashion in the United States. PharmaCARE teamed with some toxic leaders in fatting its profit margin. The welfare of the Colberians did not concern them in any way. Hellriegel and Slocum noted a concern for a global team. The global team would have benefited PharmaCARE tremendously. “The global team helps to define common features of goods and services that will appeal to customers in different countries. The global team members from different countries can provide insight into an input about these unique market needs and requirements for specific attributes of goods and services” (Hellrigel & Slocum, 2011, p.360). A company wants to be correct in dealing with foreigners because if anything is done wrong eventually the world will find out. In this scenario, the executives profit, while the workers receive scraps. The paper will now turn it focus on the workers inside CompCARE and could termination be consider legal in this scenario.
The workers are Allen, Ayesha, Donna, and Tom. Allen is the manager and was responsibility to make sure his staff was not in any health nor safety threat. In the case with Ayesha, she wanted to be promoted and nothing happen. She filed a complaint with the EEOC. “The EEOC was created to increase job opportunities for women and minorities and to help end discrimination based on race, color, religion, disability, gender, or national origin in any personnel action” (Boone & Kurtz, 2012, p. 61). Allen could have avoided this by putting Ayesha on a supervisor track. Allen could have been a role model for Ayesha, while showing her the responsibility of a supervisor.
Allen should have talked to Ayesha and giving her pointers on what she needed to do to be considered for a supervisor job. In the case of Donna, she never was one to stay out of work. She had a perfect attendance until the discovery of mold was found. She became ill because nothing was done to rectify the mold problem. Therefore, Allen do not have a just cause to fire Donna knowing the reason of her illness. She continued to work until she could no longer and filed for worker compensation. “Any employee, irrespective of their length of service, who is dismissed or subjected to a detriment for certain health and safety reasons, would have a potential claim against their employer” (Calcott, 2011, p.12). In the case of Tom, he wanted something done about the mold problem. Tom was a supervisor at CompCARE and he reported to Allen.
Tom noticed how all the workers were getting sick and took action. He informed Allen about the sir quality in the lab. Tom did the right thing in reporting all problems to his superior. The assumed Tom waited and went to Allen again to do something about the air quality. The problem gotten worsen and Tom threatened to turn the company in to OSHA. Tom would be consider a whistleblower. “A whistleblower exposes the misdeeds of others in organizations” (Schermerhorn, 2010, p.100). The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 prohibits an employee from getting fired for telling on unethical conduct. The paper will now look at how Allen could have benefit by supporting his employees and himself. Allen knew something was not right and yet he did nothing when the problem was not fix. “Employers are well aware of their extensive responsibilities to employees under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974” (Calcott, 2011, p.12).
In the role Allen have, he was obligated and held the responsibility to protect his staff. Allen reported to his boss as to what was going on, therefore he should took the next steps in finding help for his employees. Allen could have benefited himself by having a clear conscious he did what was right. He would have been free from any prosecution the employees would have filed on the company. He would have been protected under the Whistleblower Act as well. Allen’s health was just as much danger as his staff and this should have been enough to make him tell authority. PharmaCARE’s renders a purported environmental stewardship is worst and the company’s public stance should carry an obligation to be a leader in environmental matters. PharmaCARE should be more concern about Colberians’ environment. PharmaCARE should want to help the people who is producing their product.
They could help with building homes for the Colberians, by knowing their conditions. The executives live in nice places with running water and electricity. PharmaCARE can set up a fund in order to educate the people of Colberia. Teaching and showing people how to be more efficient will help PharmaCARE profit more. The people will be loyal to the company helping them. PharmaCARE can help the Colberians to be more productivity in everyday life. When a company goes in a foreign country to do business it should make sure of the country’s policy. Companies move their business to foreign countries are still liable if something happen. The company should be willing to help build the area up the workers live in. Building roadways to carry PharmaCARE’s drugs is a significant matter. The WTO is cutting down on companies that are no treating foreigners’ right. This is in health and safety as well as in the United States.
The WTO is an advocate for under privilege countries. It protects the right of the workers in poverty countries. There seem to be a big issue regarding children workers but this does not seem the case. However, WTO will not allow any injustice to come to workers in third world countries. “The WTO’s agreements permit members to take measures to protect not only the environment but also public health, animal health and plant health. However, these measures must be applied in the same way to both national and foreign businesses. In other words, members must not use environmental protection measures as a means of disguising protectionist policies” (WTO, 2013). The author believes now things are getting better because companies know someone is watching them. The next concern to look at concerning this scenario is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) “is a liability scheme rather than a monitoring program” ( Halbert & Ingulli, 2012, p.207).
According to the Environmental Protection Agency “the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) commonly known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980” (CERCLA, 2013). The CERCLA’s function were to assist others when a hazardous substances might endanger others or the environment. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act provided accountability of persons accountable for discharges of hazardous waste. It also established a trust fund to make available for cleanup when no guilty party could be acknowledged. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act do not support the PharmaCARE scenario. The PharmaCARE is a pharmaceutical company and CERCLA’s target is chemical and petroleum industries. CERCLA will assist when the responsibility people cannot be located.
In this scenario the responsible party is known and could have done something about the matter before it got out of hand. The cleanup should fall on PharmaCARE and not CERCLA. There were signs and people to tell the story of what happen and how nothing was done to cease the problem. There were no transporters bringing the mold into the company. The mold grew and causing the air quality to be tamper with. PharmaCare is fully blame for this and should pay for the cleanup and compensate the workers on their health issues. PharmaCARE was bogus and should be made to buy back CompCARE from WellCo. WellCo is an innocent party while things were being withheld from the company.
Boone, G., & Kurtz, D. (2012). Contemporary Business (14th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Calcott, J. (2011). Don’t stumble over safety. Works Management, 64(8), 12 CERCLA. (2013). Retrieved August 18, 2013, from http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/cercla.html EEOC. Retrieved July 26, 2013from http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/internal/eeo_policy_statement.cfm Global Issues. (2013). Retrieved August 16, 2013, from http://www.globalissues.org Halbert, T., & Ingulli, E. (2012). Law & ethic in business environment (7th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning Shareholder. (2013). Retrieved August 16, 2013, from www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J., W. (2011). Organization Behavior. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning
WTO. (2013). Retrieved August 18, 2013, from http://www.wto.org