Final Project: Designed To Assess Students

Final Projectthe Final Project Is Designed To Assess Student Learning

The final project is designed to assess student learning on specific course-related goals, particularly the ability to apply knowledge and skills gained from the course in analyzing ethical issues in managerial decision-making. It involves two phases: an issues/bibliography paper and a case study/final memorandum. The focus here is on developing, evaluating, and proposing resolutions for ethical dilemmas within a business context, especially related to a assigned case study, "The Plumpy’nut Controversy."

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction:

This memorandum addresses the ethical issues associated with the production and distribution of Plumpy’nut®, a nutrient-rich supplementary food designed to combat childhood malnutrition. The case involves a significant ethical dilemma centered around patent rights, global health needs, and corporate responsibility. As a hired consultant, I will analyze the facts, identify pressing ethical issues, evaluate alternative solutions, and recommend a course of action aligned with ethical principles and stakeholder considerations.

Facts Summary:

  • The FAO reports approximately 925 million undernourished people worldwide in 2010, with over 68 million children suffering from severe malnutrition, leading to nearly 5 million child deaths annually.
  • Plumpy’nut® is a proprietary, patented product developed by Nutriset, a French company, with production primarily in France and local manufacturing partnerships in developing countries like Niger, Malawi, and Kenya.
  • UNICEF purchases most Plumpy’nut® from Nutriset’s French facility, with a cost of around $60 for two months’ treatment per child—a significant barrier given the global scale of malnutrition.
  • The product’s patent restricts its mass production by other entities, notably American companies eager to increase supply and reduce costs to save more children.
  • Nutriset emphasizes protecting its patent to support local African partners and sustain a viable, ethical business model against potential patent infringements.

Ethical Dilemma:

The core ethical dilemma revolves around whether Nutriset should strictly enforce its patent rights to sustain its local partnerships and business model versus allowing alternative producers, such as U.S. companies, to manufacture cheaper, more widely available versions of Plumpy’nut®, potentially saving more children at the risk of undermining patent protections and the company’s interests.

Ethical Issues:

  1. Patent Rights vs. Global Health Needs: Protecting intellectual property rights conflicts with the urgent need for affordable, accessible nutrition in underdeveloped regions. Ethically, the obligation to safeguard patents must be balanced against the moral imperative to alleviate child malnutrition globally. Managers have fiduciary duties to protect corporate assets, but also moral responsibilities to social welfare (Benhabib, 2012).
  2. Corporate Responsibility and Social Justice: Nutriset’s stance impacts vulnerable populations severely affected by malnutrition. The ethical issue involves whether the company’s priority should be profit maximization and patent enforcement or the broader humanitarian goal of providing accessible nutrition (Crane & Matten, 2016).
  3. Local Partnerships and Economic Development: The decision to enforce patents influences local manufacturing and employment in developing countries. Ethical concerns include whether the company bears responsibility for supporting sustainable development and whether it should prioritize local economic empowerment over patent rights (Porter & Kramer, 2011).

Alternatives:

  1. Strict Enforcement of Patent Rights: Nutriset could continue to vigorously defend its patent to protect its intellectual property and sustain local partnerships. While this preserves innovation incentives and local business viability, it limits production capacity, potentially constraining access to affordable nutrition. Stakeholders such as children, local manufacturers, and international aid organizations would be affected negatively by limited supply. Ethical justification relies on protecting property rights and fostering innovation (Miller, 2019).
  2. Licensing or Patent Licensing Agreements: Nutriset could grant licenses to American or other international producers to manufacture Plumpy’nut® at lower costs. This preserves patent rights, encourages broader production, and improves access, aligning with utilitarian ethical principles by maximizing benefits. The stakeholders include Nutriset, local partners, children in need, and licensees. Pros include increased supply and affordability; cons involve potential loss of control and profit leakage.
  3. Compulsory Licensing or Patent Flexibility: In cases of humanitarian need, Nutriset could agree to compulsory licensing, allowing other producers to manufacture Plumpy’nut® without the patent holder’s consent under certain conditions. This invokes legal provisions for emergencies, aiming to balance patent protections with urgent health needs. Ethical justification underscores the principle of beneficence—doing good for the greatest number.

Recommendation:

Among the alternatives, I recommend that Nutriset adopt a policy of licensing its patent for the production of Plumpy’nut® in developing countries and to qualified international producers under strict conditions. This strategy enhances global access to vital nutrition while safeguarding the company’s intellectual property rights outlined in their patents and trademarks. Such licensing should be accompanied by provisions ensuring product quality, adherence to ethical standards, and supportive capacity-building for local manufacturers.

This approach addresses the ethical dilemma by balancing innovation incentives with moral responsibilities to reduce child malnutrition (Garriga & Melé, 2004). It will likely increase production capacity, decrease costs, and expand outreach to vulnerable populations—aligning corporate interests with social justice goals. Stakeholders such as children, local farmers, partner organizations, and Nutriset itself benefit from increased reach and sustainability. Risks involve potential quality control issues and intellectual property disputes, which can be managed through licensing agreements and monitoring (Crane & Matten, 2016).

Implementation involves establishing licensing terms, quality standards, and capacity-building initiatives. Nutriset needs to develop transparent criteria for license approval, invest in local manufacturing infrastructure, and ensure compliance with ethical standards. Ethical theories such as utilitarianism reinforce the recommendation by emphasizing the greatest good for the greatest number, while Kantian ethics supports respecting intellectual property alongside moral duties to provide aid (Kant, 1785; Singer, 2011).

Future Implications:

This licensing approach could set a precedent for other pharmaceutical and nutritional companies, encouraging a shift towards more socially responsible patent policies during humanitarian crises. Other industries might adopt similar models to balance profit motives with social responsibilities, fostering innovation that is ethically aligned with global health priorities. For the industry, this could enhance reputation, build credibility, and promote sustainable development goals, inspiring corporate models that prioritize social impact alongside economic gain.

Conclusion:

The Plumpy’nut® controversy underscores the tension between intellectual property rights and the urgency of addressing global malnutrition. Through a comprehensive ethical analysis, licensing emerges as a balanced solution that promotes increased access to life-saving nutrition without compromising innovation incentives. Implementing such a strategy can foster sustainable partnerships, improve health outcomes, and demonstrate corporate social responsibility, aligning business practices with broader ethical principles and societal needs.

References

  • Benhabib, S. (2012). The ethics of globalization. Cambridge University Press.
  • Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2016). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford University Press.
  • Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1), 51-71.
  • Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Hackett Publishing.
  • Miller, S. (2019). Intellectual property rights and access to medicines. Harvard Law Review, 132(3), 707–735.
  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62-77.
  • Singer, P. (2011). Practical ethics. Cambridge University Press.
  • Schofield, H. (2010). Legal fight over hunger product. The Guardian.
  • Rice, A. (2010). The peanut solution. Nature.
  • World Food Programme. (2011). Hunger facts and statistics. Retrieved from http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats

Related Assignments