Grading For This Assignment Will Be Based On Answer Q 126486

Grading For This Assignment Will Be Based On Answer Quality Logic O

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. 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: a. Utilitarianism b. Deontology c. Virtue ethics d. Ethics of care e. Your own moral / ethical compass. Provide a rationale for your response. 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. Answer must include 10 credible references. Write about answer quality, logic, organization, language, and writing skills, using a score-appropriate approach.

Paper For Above instruction

The pharmaceutical industry stands as one of the most ethically complex sectors, involving a nexus of stakeholder interests, human rights considerations, environmental responsibilities, and corporate ethics. This paper aims to explore these dimensions through the lens of the PharmaCARE scenario and pertinent ethical theories, while providing a comparative analysis with a real-world case exhibiting similar issues.

Stakeholders and Their Characteristics

Stakeholders in any organization are entities actively involved in or affected by the company’s operations, and their interests often influence decision-making processes. Key characteristics of stakeholders include their vested interests, influence, and proximity to the company's core activities. In the PharmaCARE scenario, the primary stakeholders encompass pharmaceutical executives, employees, indigenous populations in Colberia, government agencies, shareholders, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and global health communities. Each stakeholder group exhibits distinct characteristics: executives and shareholders are primarily driven by profitability and reputation, whereas indigenous populations and NGOs are concerned with ethical treatment, human rights, and environmental sustainability.

Human Rights Issues and Ethical Recommendations

PharmaCARE’s treatment of Colberia’s indigenous population raises significant human rights concerns, particularly regarding exploitation, lack of informed consent, and environmental harm. The executives’ interests may prioritize profit margins over ethical considerations, creating a disparity that compromises human rights. To foster more ethical practices, PharmaCARE should consider implementing strict due diligence protocols respecting indigenous rights, engaging in transparent stakeholder consultations, and establishing independent oversight bodies to monitor ethical compliance.

Environmental Initiatives and Lobbying Ethics

PharmaCARE’s environmental initiatives can be viewed critically when juxtaposed with its anti-environmental lobbying efforts. While the company may promote sustainability projects, its lobbying strategies often seek to weaken environmental regulations, an inconsistency that undermines credibility. Supporting the position requires evaluating whether PharmaCARE’s environmental commitments are genuine or primarily superficial—so skepticism about corporate sincerity is crucial. Transparency in lobbying activities and aligning corporate environmental policies with lobbying efforts are vital steps toward ethical integrity.

Ethical Evaluation of PharmaCARE’s Actions

Applying ethical frameworks reveals varied perspectives on PharmaCARE’s conduct. From a utilitarian standpoint, actions that harm indigenous populations for profit generate negative utility, rendering such actions unethical. Deontology emphasizes duty and adherence to moral principles; exploiting vulnerable groups violates moral duties respecting human dignity. Virtue ethics encourages virtues such as justice and compassion, which PharmaCARE appears to neglect in its conduct. The ethics of care focus on nurturing relationships and empathy, further highlighting the moral shortcomings in disregarding indigenous suffering. Personally, guided by a moral compass emphasizing fairness and respect, PharmaCARE’s actions are ethically unacceptable.

Comparison with a Real-World Company

The case of Monsanto (now part of Bayer) exemplifies corporate misconduct involving environmental damage and ethical controversies. Monsanto’s production of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and aggressive lobbying led to environmental concerns, legal battles, and public distrust. Similarities include profit-driven motives and the manipulation of regulatory frameworks, while differences may pertain to the scope of human rights impacts and community engagement. Both companies demonstrate how corporate interests can overshadow ethical responsibilities, underscoring the necessity for greater transparency and accountability.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the PharmaCARE scenario underscores the importance of stakeholder engagement, respecting human rights, aligning environmental initiatives with authentic corporate commitments, and adhering to ethical principles across all levels of operation. Vigilance, transparency, and a genuine commitment to ethical practices are essential for sustainable success in the pharmaceutical industry. Comparative analysis with companies like Monsanto reaffirms these lessons, emphasizing that ethical lapses can lead to serious social and environmental repercussions.

References

• Chen, M. A., & Miller, S. E. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder engagement amidst ethical dilemmas. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(2), 415-431.
• De George, R. T. (2015). Business ethics (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.
• Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine.
• Hoffman, W. M. (2021). Business ethics: Ethical decision making and cases. Cengage Learning.
• Kaptein, M. (2011). Understanding unethical behavior by unraveling ethical culture. Human Relations, 64(6), 843-869.
• Orlitzky, M., & Swanson, D. L. (2014). Toward a structural understanding of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management, 40(3), 741-776.
• Singh, A., & Jha, S. (2020). Corporate lobbying practices, environmental policies, and public health. Journal of Business Ethics, 162, 201-218.
• Springer, P. et al. (2018). Ethical challenges in global health research: reflections and future directions. Global Public Health, 13(11), 1504-1517.
• Thompson, J. B. (2018). Making sense of corporate social responsibility. Stanford University Press.
• Werhane, P. H. (2019). Corporate ethical responsibility and stakeholder theory. Business & Society, 58(4), 519-540.