Assignment 2: Ethics And Corporate Responsibility In The Wor

Assignment 2ethics And Corporate Responsibility In The Workplace And

Assignment 2: Ethics and Corporate Responsibility in the Workplace and the World PharmaCARE (We CARE about YOUR health®) is one of the world’s most successful pharmaceutical companies, enjoying a reputation as a caring, ethical, and well-run company that produces high-quality products that save millions of lives and enhance the quality of life for millions of others. The company offers free and discounted drugs to low-income consumers, has a foundation that sponsors healthcare educational programs and scholarships, and its CEO serves on the PhRMA board. PharmaCARE recently launched a new initiative, We CARE about YOUR world®, pledging its commitment to the environment through recycling, packaging changes, and other green initiatives, despite the fact that the company’s lobbying efforts and PAC have successfully defeated environmental laws and regulations, including the extension of the Superfund tax, which was created by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

Based in New Jersey, PharmaCARE maintains a large manufacturing facility in the African nation of Colberia, where the company has found several “healers” eager to freely share information about indigenous cures and an abundance of Colberians willing to work for $1.00 a day, harvesting plants by walking five miles into and out of the jungle carrying baskets that, when full, weigh up to fifty pounds. Due to the low standard of living in Colberia, much of the population lives in primitive huts with no electricity or running water. PharmaCARE’s executives, however, live in a luxury compound, complete with a swimming pool, tennis courts, and a golf course. PharmaCARE’s extensive activities in Colberia have destroyed habitat and endangered native species.

Two years ago, after PharmaCARE’s research indicated that one of its top-selling diabetes drugs might slow the progression of Alzheimer’s disease, its pharmacists began reformulating that drug to maximize the effect. To avoid FDA scrutiny, PharmaCARE established a wholly owned subsidiary, CompCARE, to operate as a compounding pharmacy to sell the new formulation to individuals on a prescription basis. CompCARE set up shop in a suburban office park near its parent’s headquarters, and to conserve money and time, did a quick, low-cost renovation and designated Allen Jones to run the operation’s “clean room.” CompCARE benefited from PharmaCARE’s reputation, databases, networks, and sales and marketing expertise, and within six months had the medical community buzzing about AD23.

Demand soared, particularly among Medicare, Medicaid, and VA patients. Seeing the opportunity to realize even more profit, CompCARE began advertising its services and the availability of AD23 to consumers and marketing the drug directly to hospitals, clinics, and physician offices, even though compounding pharmacies are not supposed to sell drugs in bulk for general use. To get around this technicality, CompCARE encouraged doctors to fax in lists of bogus patient names. As production increased and hours were extended, one of Allen’s techs pointed out what appeared to be mold around the air vents. Allen immediately contacted the facility’s supervisor, who came over to inspect the lab.

As time went on, workers began coughing, sneezing, and getting headaches at work, and one employee, Donna, who had a perfect attendance record, got so sick she could no longer come to work due to chronic bronchial problems. Eventually, she filed for worker’s compensation. Allen’s best supervisor, Tom, threatened to complain to OSHA about the air quality in the lab, and one of the techs, Ayesha, filed an EEOC complaint alleging she had not been promoted to supervisor because she was a Muslim; in fact, although Ayesha was a very good worker, Allen did not believe she had the management or people skills necessary to be a good supervisor. Allen discussed these issues with his boss, the Director of Operations, who told Allen that if he wants to keep his job and receive his promised bonus, he needs to fire Donna, Tom, and Ayesha, and keep his own mouth shut about the mold and the bogus prescriptions.

As CompCARE and its parent company enjoyed record profits and PharmaCARE’s stock price approached $300 per share, reports started filtering in that people who received AD23 seemed to be suffering heart attacks at an alarming rate. The company ignored this data and continued filling large orders and paid huge bonuses to all the executives and managers, including Allen, who, after being named “Employee of the Year,” was beginning to miss production schedules due to his staff’s increasing use of sick leave, as well as his own health issues. PharmaCARE sold CompCARE to WellCo, a large drugstore chain, weeks before AD23 was publicly linked to over 200 cardiac deaths. Both PharmaCARE and WellCo saw their stock prices plummet.

Paper For Above instruction

This paper explores the multifaceted ethical dilemmas and corporate social responsibility issues present in the scenario involving PharmaCARE. It aims to identify stakeholders, analyze ethical considerations, evaluate legal implications, and assess environmental and regulatory compliance within the context of corporate ethics.

Stakeholders Involved

The scenario presents numerous stakeholders including PharmaCARE’s executive leadership, employees, consumers of the drugs, indigenous populations in Colberia, regulatory agencies like the FDA, OSHA, EEOC, environmental groups, shareholders, and the broader community affected by the company’s environmental and human rights practices.

Ethical Analysis of PharmaCARE’s Treatment

PharmaCARE’s treatment of the Colberian indigenous population raises significant ethical concerns regarding exploitation and environmental destruction. The exploitation of Colberian healers and workers reflects a disregard for indigenous rights and welfare, compounded by environmental degradation that threatens biodiversity and local ecosystems. In contrast, the company’s treatment of its rank-and-file employees, some of whom suffered health issues due to unsafe working conditions, demonstrates a pattern of prioritizing profits over safety, particularly when intimidation and unethical pressure tactics are employed to silence whistleblowers. The disparity signifies a moral failure in balancing corporate interests with social and environmental responsibilities.

Legal Viability of Firing Donna, Tom, and Ayesha

Legally, Allen’s ability to terminate these employees depends on employment law, anti-discrimination statutes, and workers’ rights regulations. Donna’s sick leave due to illness, protected under workers’ compensation laws, makes her dismissal without proper just cause potentially unlawful. Tom’s threat to report OSHA violations introduces whistleblower protections, which often prohibit retaliatory firing. Similarly, Ayesha’s EEOC complaint alleging discrimination based on religion grants her protections under anti-discrimination laws, restricting her dismissal. To minimize legal risks, Allen should conduct proper investigations, document performance and safety concerns thoroughly, and ensure any disciplinary actions comply with employment laws, possibly seeking legal counsel beforehand.

Whistleblowing Opportunities, Obligations, and Protections

Allen has ethical and legal obligations to report unsafe working conditions and violations of health and safety regulations. Whistleblower protections under OSHA and the False Claims Act offer remedies and protections against retaliation, encouraging employees like Tom and Ayesha to report violations without fear of reprisal. By whistleblowing internally or externally, Allen can help expose regulatory violations related to unsafe environmental conditions, harmful drug formulations, and unethical employment practices. Such actions not only uphold legal standards but also protect public health and preserve corporate integrity. Whistleblowers benefit through legal protections, potential rewards, and personal moral satisfaction.

Environmental Initiative Versus Lobbying Efforts

PharmaCARE’s green initiatives, such as recycling and packaging changes, appear superficial when contrasted with its lobbying efforts that successfully defeated environmental regulations, including the extension of the Superfund tax. This contradiction indicates a “greenwashing” strategy—publicly promoting environmentally friendly policies while actively undermining environmental protections. The company’s destructive activities in Colberia further exacerbate this inconsistency, making its environmental stance hypocritical. True corporate social responsibility mandates aligning public environmental commitments with consistent ethical behavior, including advocating for strong environmental laws and accountability.

CERCLA’s Original Intent and Application

CERCLA was enacted to facilitate rapid cleanup of hazardous waste sites and assign liability to responsible parties. Its original purpose was to protect human health and the environment from toxic wastes. In this scenario, PharmaCARE’s activities in Colberia, which have resulted in habitat destruction and endangered species, could trigger CERCLA provisions regarding hazardous waste management and environmental contamination. If evidence indicates the company’s operations have significantly contributed to pollution or toxic site creation, they could be held liable under CERCLA’s provisions, specifically sections related to Superfund cleanup and liable parties.

Conclusion

The scenario illustrates profound ethical lapses, regulatory violations, and contradictions in corporate social responsibility. PharmaCARE’s exploitation of vulnerable populations, neglect of employee safety, and superficial environmental initiatives demonstrate a failure to uphold ethical standards. Legally, the company risks liability under several statutes, especially if it neglects its environmental responsibilities. Managers like Allen have avenues for whistleblowing and legal protection, which are crucial for fostering accountability. Ultimately, corporations must practice genuine responsibility—balancing profitability with ethical integrity and environmental sustainability—to maintain stakeholder trust and societal legitimacy.

References

• Crane, A., Matten, D., & Spence, L. J. (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility: Readings and Cases in a Global Context. Routledge.
• Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits. The New York Times Magazine.
• Hartman, L. P., & DesJardins, J. R. (2011). Business Ethics: Decision Making for Personal Integrity & Social Responsibility. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Hoffman, W. M., & Stanton, S. J. (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability. SAGE Publications.
• Scruton, R. (2012). Environmental Responsibility and Ethical Business. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(2), 197-206.
• United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2020). CERCLA Law & Regulatory Overview. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/cercla-overview
• U.S. Department of Labor. (2015). OSHA’s Whistleblower Protection Programs. https://www.osha.gov/workers/whistleblower
• Walters, R. P. (2008). Corporate Ethical Responsibility and International Business. Business & Society, 47(4), 19-42.
• Weber, J., & Johnson, H. (2013). Environmental Ethics and Business Practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(4), 713–726.
• Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications.