Assignment 3: Ethics And Corporate Responsibility In 466678

Assignment 3ethics And Corporate Responsibility In The Workplace And

Describe the key characteristics of a stakeholder and determine all the stakeholders within the PharmaCARE scenario. 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. Assess PharmaCARE’s environmental initiative against the backdrop of its anti-environmental lobbying efforts and Colberian activities.

Support the position. 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: Utilitarianism, Deontology, Virtue Ethics, Ethics of Care, and your own moral/ethical compass. 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.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The importance of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and ethical conduct in multinational corporations cannot be overstated. These organizations operate in complex environments that encompass diverse stakeholders, human rights considerations, and ecological impacts. PharmaCARE, a renowned pharmaceutical company, exemplifies both ethical commitments and questionable practices, especially within its operations in Colberia, an African nation with profound socio-economic and environmental challenges. This paper explores the ethical landscape of PharmaCARE’s activities, focusing on stakeholder analysis, human rights issues, ethical theory evaluation, and comparisons with real-world corporate conduct.

Stakeholder Characteristics and Identification

Stakeholders are individuals or groups affected by an organization’s actions, decisions, and policies. Freeman (1984) defines stakeholders as entities that can influence or be influenced by a company’s operations. In the context of PharmaCARE’s scenario, stakeholders include shareholders, executive management, employees, local indigenous populations in Colberia, government bodies, environmental NGOs, and consumers who rely on the company's products.

The indigenous Colberian community is a primary stakeholder experiencing direct impacts from PharmaCARE’s activities. They depend on local natural resources, which are exploited and destroyed, and suffer health and cultural consequences. The company’s executives and shareholders are stakeholders driven by financial performance and corporate reputation, yet their actions raise human rights concerns. Local governments and environmental organizations are also impacted, with policies and activism affected by PharmaCARE’s lobbying and operational practices.

Human Rights Issues and Ethical Dilemmas

PharmaCARE’s treatment of Colberia’s indigenous population presents significant human rights issues. The exploitation of low-wage workers and destruction of habitat violate principles of fair treatment, cultural respect, and environmental sustainability. Indigenous communities are deprived of their land rights and subjected to unsafe working conditions, reflecting systemic inequalities and cultural insensitivity.

Conversely, PharmaCARE’s executives lead lives of privilege, residing in luxury compounds and enjoying benefits absent from the local workforce’s impoverishment. This stark disparity underscores ethical concerns about social justice, equity, and the fair distribution of benefits and burdens. The company’s failure to ensure equitable treatment and respect for indigenous rights constitutes a violation of fundamental human rights and ethical standards.

Recommendations for Ethical Improvements

PharmaCARE can adopt multiple measures to enhance its ethical posture:

1. Implement Fair Trade and Ethical Sourcing Practices: Ensuring all suppliers and local workers are paid living wages, provided safe working conditions, and operate in compliance with human rights standards.

2. Engage in Community and Environmental Stakeholder Dialogue: Regularly consulting with local communities, environmental groups, and government agencies to align corporate practices with social and ecological sustainability.

3. Transparency and Accountability in Operations: Publishing detailed sustainability reports, conducting third-party audits, and establishing mechanisms for complaints and redress to foster corporate accountability.

Assessment of Environmental Initiative and Lobbying

PharmaCARE publicly champions eco-friendly initiatives, such as recycling and green packaging, aligning with corporate social responsibility principles. However, its lobbying efforts oppose stricter environmental regulations, including efforts to defeat the extension of Superfund taxes, which aim to clean up contaminated sites and protect ecosystems (Environmental Defense Fund, 2020). This contradiction reveals a conflict between the company’s environmental commitments and its underlying influence to weaken environmental protections that safeguard ecological and public health.

This inconsistency undermines the sincerity of PharmaCARE’s environmental initiatives, suggesting a strategic use of green branding while continuing activities detrimental to biodiversity and habitat integrity—especially in Colberia, where habitat destruction and species endangerment are prevalent.

Ethical Evaluation Using Key Theories

Utilitarianism evaluates actions based on their consequences; PharmaCARE’s environmental harm and human rights violations likely produce more suffering than benefits, rendering their practices unethical from this perspective (Mill, 1863).

Deontology emphasizes duty and adherence to moral rules; knowingly exploiting indigenous populations and damaging the environment violate Kant’s categorical imperatives to treat humans and nature as ends, not merely means (Kant, 1785). Therefore, PharmaCARE’s conduct conflicts with deontological ethics.

Virtue ethics focuses on moral character traits—virtue, justice, compassion. The disparity in living standards between executives and indigenous workers reflects a deficiency in virtues such as justice and benevolence.

The ethics of care stress the importance of relational interdependence and responsibility. PharmaCARE’s neglect of local communities’ needs and well-being demonstrates a failure in caring ethics, which prioritize empathy and responsibility.

Personal Ethical Perspective

My own moral compass emphasizes respect for human dignity, ecological sustainability, and social justice. Consequently, PharmaCARE’s current practices are ethically unacceptable, requiring fundamental changes aligning corporate actions with moral responsibilities to people and the planet.

Comparison with a Similar Corporate Case

A comparison can be drawn with the case of Shell Oil’s oil spills and environmental degradation in the Niger Delta (Ovadia, 2010). Shell’s operations led to ecological devastation, community displacement, and health hazards, mirroring PharmaCARE’s habitat destruction and exploitation in Colberia. Both cases illustrate the dangers of prioritizing profits over environmental and human rights, as well as the necessity of robust stakeholder engagement and ethical corporate governance.

Conclusion

PharmaCARE’s activities highlight critical ethical issues, including human rights abuses, environmental degradation, and corporate hypocrisy. While the company’s CSR initiatives signal commitment, their contradictions with lobbying efforts and exploitative practices undermine credibility. Ethical evaluation through multiple frameworks advocates for significant reforms, emphasizing respect, transparency, and responsible stewardship. Firms like PharmaCARE must recognize their moral obligations not only to shareholders but to the broader community and environment, fostering sustainable and equitable growth.

References

  • Environmental Defense Fund. (2020). The truth about corporate greenwashing. EDF Reports. https://www.edf.org
  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman.
  • Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Hackett Publishing.
  • Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, & Bourn.
  • Ovadia, J. S. (2010). Shell in the Niger Delta: From production to destruction. Journal of Environmental Studies, 45(3), 523-543.
  • Roberts, R. W. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and human rights: A case study of extractive industries. Business Ethics Quarterly, 29(2), 307-334.
  • Sachs, J. D. (2015). The Sustainable Development Goals and their implications for corporate responsibility. World Development, 73, 129-147.
  • Schwartz, M. S. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(2), 245–253.
  • United Nations. (2011). Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. UN Reports.
  • World Health Organization. (2020). Ethical considerations in global health research. WHO Publications.

Related Assignments