Ethics and Corporate Responsibility in the Workplace and the World of PharmaCARE Corporation - Case Study Example

Ethics and Corporate Responsibility in the Workplace and the World of PharmaCARE Corporation For sustainable profitable operations, business organizations are required to invest significant resources in the area of ethics and corporate responsibility both within the workplace and the world in which it operates. Having a well spelt out ethics and corporate responsibility will inform how the organization interacts with its stakeholders therefore cultivating a business environment in which every individual perform their duties to the expected level. This essay presents an analysis of the activities of CompCARE in relation to ethics and corporate responsibility both within the company’s workplace and the world in which it operates while also relating these practices with available regulatory frameworks. Determine all the stakeholders in this scenario Stakeholders in this scenario are everyone who can have influence as well as those are influenced by the activities of PharmaCARE. Therefore, the stakeholders include the company’s employees who are contracted to offer specific services to PharmaCARE. From the way PharmaCARE treats certain employees in their payroll, it seems there are distinctions within this group where executive receive special treatment while lower ranked employees are mistreated. Apart from those working in the plants at PharmaCARE headquarters and its subsidiary CompCARE, other employees include those under contract in Colberia. Another group of stakeholders is the consumers of products from CompCARE and PharmaCARE as a whole. In the current scenario, this group includes all those who consumed the drug AD23 regardless of whether they suffered heart attacks or cardiac deaths as long as they used the drug. The doctors operating in different hospitals, clinics as well as physician offices that interacted with drugs from CompCARE or PharmaCARE and who where bribed to simulate the demand for AD23 are also stakeholders given that their activities increased the profits of PharmaCARE. The investors in PharmaCARE shares are part of the stakeholders as they received huge bonuses when the value of the stock averaged at $300 per share in addition to the huge profits they generated when CompCARE was sold to WellCo. The government in both the US and Colberia are also stakeholders through various legal and regulatory mechanisms put in place to oversee the activities of corporations such as PharmaCARE, CompCARE and WellCo operating in the pharmaceutical industry. Ethics of PharmaCARE’s treatment of the Colberia’s indigenous population and its rank-and-file workers versus that of its executives Given the way PharmaCARE handles its employees, there seems to be a double standard in the conditions under which these employees operate. According to the definition supplied by Andersen (2004), corporate ethics are the principles as well as values that determine the acceptable standards of operations of business organizations. For any business organization to be considered as one that treats its employees ethically, the organization must put in place a number of policies that will ensure employees are paid a fair share based on their contribution to the organization. Further, the business organization must ensure it provides employees with a workplace environment that do not harm them physically or mentally while any reservation about the working conditions is also handled promptly (Fulton-Calkins Rankin and Shumack, 2010). The business operations can only be acceptable when employees, consumers of goods and services, special interest groups, the competitive environment, regulatory agencies as well as the community within which the business operates do not feel aggrieved by the conduct of the business organization in question. Consequently, PharmaCARE’s treatment of Colberia’s indigenous population as well as the company’s rank-and-file workers is unethical. Firstly, the indigenous workers in Colberia are kept working for low wages while the executives enjoy a luxurious lifestyle that consists of a compound that has a swimming pool as well as playgrounds and facilities to play tennis and golf. According to the United Nations’ definition of poverty, people who earn one dollar and below day are poor (Segal-Horn and Faulkner, 2010), therefore, it is not ethical for PharmaCARE to continue keeping its workers from Colberia in poverty by paying them low wages. Secondly, PharmaCARE failed to guarantee its workers a workplace environment where they can be assured of their physical and mental health. While the organization’s executives where enjoying millions of dollars as profits for the sale of AD23 PharmaCARE employees working in its subsidiary company CompCARE were complaining about their working conditions. The new facility under which CompCARE operated was constructed in a hurry and with a view to cut costs therefore could not meet the required standard although it was called “clean room”. The heath of workers was compromised when mold around the air conditioner was not handled with the urgency it required resulting in coughing, sneezing as well as headaches and chronic bronchial infections for employee who worked in the facility. Given the manner in which PharmaCARE treated its employees from Colberia’s indigenous population as well as its rank-and-file workers, it should be expected that the company would face legal actions as retaliation for their working conditions. A number of organizations have in the past years faced legal suits because of the they have to the manner in which they have treated their employees, for instance, supermarket chain giant, Wal-Mart, was taken to court by over ten thousand employees. The employees filed a class action suit against Wal-Mart for refusing to provide them with suitable seating. The suit was filed in a California court by cashier who argued that they had to be on their feet for a long period during their working hours, which resulted in joint pains and other health complications Farfan, B. (2013). Consequently, the treatment that PharmaCARE workers such as Colberia’s indigenous as well as the rank-and-file workers received can be categorized as unethical on several fronts. The business organization practiced unfair compensation for its employees with executives being paid huge salaries while the rank-to-file and indigenous Colberians were poorly compensated for their services additionally the rank-to-file were exposed to harsh and unsafe working conditions leading to infections that threatened their health. Whether Allen could legally fire each of the three (3) workers—Donna, Tom, and Ayesha Under the laws governing employment and termination of employees, Allen action to discontinue PharmaCARE employment of Tom, Donna as well as Ayesha falls under the section on wrongful and unfair dismissal (Taylor and Emir, 2012; Hogler, 2004). This law has various applications for the situations that each of these employees where in. for Donna, the reason for seeking legal redress and compensation is that the working condition of what was supposed to be a clean room had led to her health complications due to the facility’s unsafe and unhealthy working condition. Consequently, Allen does not have a legal basis to dismiss her since by terminating Donna’s employment means the organization will be denying her the right to channel her grievances through legal means for the pain she has undergone because of her employer’s negligence. As a supervisor, Tom is aware of the compromised safety and health working conditions within the facility and that the company had failed to address these issues when they were raised. Tom is within his right to report to OSHA about the compromised safety standards and Allen cannot therefore find a legal basis to fire him. However, Allen might only have a legal basis to dismiss Ayesha as long as he proves that her demands to be promoted could not be met due to her qualification and not discrimination on religious grounds. Allen will have to prove that Ayesha was blackmailing the organization to promote her since she was making false claims when the real reason is that she did not have the required skills to be a supervisor (United States Department of Labor, n.d). To minimize the risk to the company due to the dismissal of the three employees, Allen should find reasons to justify his such as initiating the necessary actions to remedy the situation. Further, to Allen can avoid protracted court action by making an out of court settlement with the aggrieved employees. Whistleblowing opportunities, obligations, and protections that could benefit Allen Allen needs to establish a workplace environment that encourages employees to report issues about ethical as well as safety without fear of being reprimanded. For such an environment to thrive, employees should feel that the organization welcomes positive criticism and there is a willingness to take the necessary steps when issues are raised (Johnson, 2003; Lewis, 2001). Consequently, for whistleblowers under his command to feel free reporting grievances to Allen than to OSHA, he should encourage a change in organizational culture. Allen should also restructure how the organization identifies, selects and assigns supervisors as well as managers to head various sections of his department in order to make potential whistleblowers comfortable enough to give information about illegal and unsafe areas of concern within the workplace. Further, having a rapid response system will help Allen handle the raised concerns within a short period of time, which will assure whistleblowers of the commitment to act on raised concerns. Through such undertakings, Allen and PharmaCARE as a whole will benefit from whistle blowing opportunities as organizational negligence and management crisis will be avoided resulting in efficiency and effectiveness within the organization (Lewis, 2001). PharmaCARE’s environmental initiative against the backdrop of its anti-environmental lobbying efforts and Colberian activities PharmaCARE has been purporting that is cares for its employees and the environment through the PharmaCARE initiative. However, a number of activities by the organizations officials paint a contradicting picture of the organization. Firstly, the organization cannot guarantee employees a safe and healthy working environment given the number of complains about began coughing, sneezing, and getting headaches by employees working in what is supposed to be a clean room. The management failed to take the necessary actions to remedy the situation choosing to fire employees who complained about their suffering due to the unhealthy working environment. The company’s environmental concern is further put to question by the fact that it continued to supply drugs that were alleged to be causing heart problems to patients who used them. A company that cares for the environment will as care for the consumers of its products and will not continue supplying any harmful product to innocent patients. We CARE about YOUR world® initiative is a white elephant given PharmaCARE’s activities in Colberia has resulted in widespread environmental degradation through harvesting of plants in the jungles made up of indigenous trees. The effect of such harvesting of large quantities of plants will not only lead to future deforestation, but indigenous plants will also be wiped out. Further, an organization that cares for the environment will not fight the rules that are aimed at protecting the same environment. Given that PharmaCARE lobbied against laws that would have established strict environmental laws and regulations, there is no moral ground for the company to claim it cared for the environment. Original purposes of and the changes to Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA CERCLA was established in 1980 but further amendment to strengthen the act’s functioning was included in 1986 through the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). It is the responsibility of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to supervise whether concerned organizations are complying with CERCLA provisions. For this to be possible, EPA has been given the necessary resources for initiating investigations as well as making follow-ups about cleanup measures of abandoned locations that might be polluted (Switzer and Bulan, 2002).  The legal provisions that established CERCLA makes it possible for liability for pollution to be applied in retrospective as well as covering several groups of potential defendants such as current owners, past owners and arrangers of disposal (Switzer and Bulan, 2002). Based on the provision of CERLCA, PharmaCARE are liable and could face charges about environmental pollution as well as exposure of workers to toxic substances. If it is determined that PharmaCARE contravened CERLCA provisions, it will be forced to compensate employees who had suffered health complications while working in facilities that were owed by the organization. The analysis of activities of PharmaCARE has revealed gross legal, ethical as well as corporate responsibility flows. The company made millions of dollars of profits for the executives and shareholders while its operations continued to exploit its employees of Colberia’s indigenous descent as well as the rank-and-file workers. Further production of its AD23 drugs led to heart complications and deaths for consumers who were unaware of the health complications that could result from taking the drugs. Even as the company was branded as one that cares for people and environment, actions contradicted this initiative as employees got sick because of working in unhealthy conditions yet those who complained where threatened of dismissal. References Andersen, B. (2004). Bringing business ethics to life: Achieving corporate social responsibility. Milwaukee, Wisc: ASQ Quality Press. Farfan, B. (2013). Another Day, Another Walmart Class Action Employee Lawsuit - How U.S. Retail Employment Is Defined By Wal-Mart’s Ethics (WMT, RAD, WTSL). About.com. Retrieved Feb 22, 2014, from http://retailindustry.about.com/b/2013/05/27/another-day-another-walmart-class-action-employee-lawsuit-how-u-s-retail-employment-is-defined-by-wal-marts-ethics-wmt-rad-wtsl.htm Fulton-Calkins, P., Rankin, D., & Shumack, K. (2010). The Administrative Professional: Technology & Procedures. Stamford: Cengage Learning. Hogler, R. L. (2004). Employment relations in the United States: Law, policy, and practice. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications. Johnson, R. A. (2003). Whistleblowing: When it works and why. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Segal-Horn, S., & Faulkner, D. (2010). Understanding global strategy. Stamford: Cengage Learning Switzer, C. S., & Bulan, L. A. (2002). CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Chicago, Ill: Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources, American Bar Association. Taylor, S., & Emir, A. (2012). Employment law: an introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. United States Department of Labor. Occupation Safety and Health Administration. Retrieved Feb 22, 2014, from https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=11279 Read More