Business Ethics: The Sale of Homeopathy by Loblaw Ltd - Case Study Example

Business Ethics Case: The Sale of Homeopathy by Loblaw Ltd

Ethics concerns how an individual arrives at a moral judgment regarding what is wrong or right. Although individuals or groups may make decisions in every business context, such is subject to the prevailing culture and later influences how ethics upheld (DesJardins & McCall, 2014). As such, the decision of behaving ethically in a business context is a moral construction because individuals have the obligation of deciding what they perceive to be the right action to undertake (Jones & Gautschi, 2013). Business ethics has always been confined to the mainstream business environment, but the health care organizations (profit organizations) have also become under scrutiny for some of the business practices they employ. More so, it has been questionable as to why some of the companies promote health care products that either have least chances of working or at worst, have no chances of working. Notably, the case presented in this analysis is the sale of homeopathy, especially with the marketing disclaimer that it has powers of stimulating the body’s healing powers (Ho, 2014). Therefore, it is imperative to analyses the ethics behind the selling of homeopathy, exploring the stakeholders involved as well as the possible action plan for addressing the ethical issue.

The Case: Ethics of Selling Homeopathy

The case presented in this analysis is that of advertisement of homeopathy as a drug that stimulates the healing powers of the body (Ho, 2014). More so, the moral concern with such an advertisement is that the drug does not work as stipulated; this brings about implications on business ethics as to how a company would sell products that have no worth to the potential customers (DesJardins & McCall, 2014). Loblaw Cos. Ltd brought attention to the use of this drug with the advertisement "Homeopathy has the potential to stimulate the body's healing powers. Ask us to help you select a remedy" (McDonald, 2015).

The sale of Homeopathy: facts; evidences and reliability

One of the relevant events vital in understanding this case is the effects that the drug has on individuals. As such, this is a case of a business decision made without considering the implications on the customers (DesJardins & McCall, 2014). For sure, homeopathy has no capabilities of increasing or improving the body’s healing powers as an implication that the effects on individuals are a crucial factor to consider in the case. As such, the case would be likened to a Ponzi scheme advertising individuals that it is the best strategy for investment after retirement. Nonetheless, in the case of the company, Loblaw Ltd, an ethical issue or concern with the advertisement is the use of weasel words to convince or deceive customers especially using words like “potential”; in this case, the management dodged making direct claims on the cause and effects of the product, or the drug (McDonald, 2015). Therefore, the use of deceiving words makes the company’s decision deeply unethical. The implication is that by claiming that the drug has the potential in stimulating the healing powers of the body, in reality, was unethical business behavior.

Nevertheless, technical scientific knowledge highlights the ethical concern behind selling homeopathy. For instance, science knowledge, from biology, has proven that the drug does not work, as this has been subject to thorough testing (Ho, 2014). Therefore, since scientific consensus on the sale of the drug is very clear, it can be argued that selling homeopathy is unethical. In addition, some empirical evidence has suggested short-lived placebo effect with homeopathy, but since the effects are limited, it is unethical to sell homeopathy (Rollin, 2015). Moreover, scientific knowledge or approach to understanding the case also explores the ethics behind selling the drug. As such, the drug has been marketed as an alternative medicine, challenging conventional medicine. However, in reality, using the term alternative medicine is ethical. In addition, every drug being sold to people should be subject to science-based evidence through clinical trials (Ho, 2014). As such, the use and the sale of homeopathy would be based on false-positive results and the decision was not subject to scientific perspective. Therefore, technical scientific knowledge proves otherwise that the medicine does not have benefits as stipulated by the company thus the way the product was marketed is deceitful and unethical business practice.

The evidence confirming the unethical behavior behind the sale of homeopathy medicine is that scientific trials have proven to be ineffective (Ho, 2014). On the other hand, for those claiming its effects, they have only been short-lived while other customers concluded its effectiveness from the stories heard from neighbors and friends.

Values/conflicts and Moral Challenge in the Case

The main moral issue at stake with the production and sale of homeopathy is risky or poses a health risk to the individuals. Although the drug has been considered a hope for improving the body's capacity or ability to heal faster, it is no doubt that being given a drug that has the least effect on the particular disease condition is a risk to health. Therefore, the moral issue behind the case is that of putting the lives of people at risk (Martinez & Jaeger, 2016).

The main moral actor in the case is the company Loblaw Ltd. because the actions of the top management could have informed the decision to sell a drug that does not even work as marked or promised to the patients or customers. However, the scientific community also has a part to play in the case, because by confirming the suitability of the drug, through laboratory tests, they can determine or resolve the case as an unethical behavior selling a drug that does not enhance healing of the body (McDonald, 2015).

Notably, the case can be analyzed using intuitionism that perceives that right or wrong is objective property; something remains good simply because it is good and does not need further justification (Audi, 2015). As such, the approach presumes that human beings, particularly adults have the intuitive moral senses enabling them to detect the moral truths (Audi, 2015). Therefore, for the management of the Loblaw Ltd, they were fully aware of the scientific evidence confirming the ineffectiveness of homeopathy, and if such truth were upheld, then intuitionist would blame the management for failing to take the correct moral judgment by refusing a course of action known to be unethical.

Jonathan Haidt would describe the scenario as based on the moral of care and harm, linking the case to morals of fairness and cheating (Graham & Haidt, 2012). For instance, the harm and care moral value stipulate that humans have virtues of gentleness, nurturance, and kindness, thus preferring to help others rather than inflicting harm. For the company, the decision to sell or market a health care product that can endanger or risk the life of the customers was ethically wrong. On the other hand, the moral value of cheating applies in the case since it concerns being fair in comparison to cheating, based on the mutual altruism as human nature. Therefore, the company did not show fairness to its customers by advertising and marketing a drug that does not function. Hence, considering the foundations of moral values in the case, the situation is that of a conflict of doing the right and not wrong (Graham & Haidt, 2012); it is unethical sound to provide scientifically proven health care products and not sell products that have been proven to have least benefits to the customers or posing serious health concerns.

The moral issue is that of an action because the company has triggered a course of action by claiming to patients or client that the homeopathy drug is effective in helping the body to heal faster while on the same note, it does not function as stated (McDonald, 2015).Concerning the moral claims of virtue, the moral claim of common good would apply in this case. Virtue ethics involve actions undertaken by character and not the duty that one sets to fulfill to bring good consequences (Graham & Haidt, 2012). Therefore, for the management of Loblaw Ltd., this would be a question of acting the way a virtuous person would or showing positive trait by avoiding the manufacture and sale of a product that has least benefits to the patients. Concerning moral claims of duty, a deontological approach would apply in this case since it argues that decisions should be made concerning the duty of a person and the right of the other (Audi, 2015). For instance, as a health care product manufacturing company, Loblaw Ltd. has the duty to ensure the welfare of the public by providing the right medicine; instead, the company failed in this duty. Finally, the moral claim of consequences applicable in this case would be the benefit to the patients because the drug, homeopathy has no impact in healing the body thus it was morally wrong to market the product as doing so (Audi, 2015).

In this case, I would have explained the situation using my wisdom tradition codes and values, as a Christian, to explore the moral issue in the case. My values and codes of behavior, as developed from wisdom tradition, would understand the case as that of inflicting harm to others and showing no kindness to people. For instance, Christian values and codes, to which I developed my wisdom traditions from, condemn cases of cheating and bringing about harm to others. Therefore, the moral issue conflicts or contradicts that of the stakeholders because according to the management of the Loblaw company, it is right hurting customers and providing false information as this contradicts my code and value of not having to lie as a Christian.

Stakeholder Analysis

There are many stakeholders with interests in the case. For one, the consumer rights group would vouch for the rights of the consumers of getting the right products (McDonald, 2015). Customers are part of the stakeholders, as they will have to acquire the products from the company. The science community also has a stake in the issue since they scientists carry out research to ensure that the products have been proven through laboratory tests to confirm their suitability for consumption (Rollin, 2015). The medical profession, to which health care products belong, is also a stakeholder in the issue since it recommends some of the codes to guide professionalism in the medicine field, especially how pharmacists should behave.

For the science community, one of the important values is that of preventing harm to the population through proven and tested products, and this supports their moral judgment when individuals have consumed products otherwise known to have side effects (Rollin, 2015). The consumer rights groups vouch for the welfare of the consumers thus their values are based on preventing harm and increasing benefits to consumers. The medical profession is concerned with upholding the professionalism of the sector, claiming that individuals should behave professionally and undertake ethically sound decisions.

However, the competing interest complicating the issue is that of the focus or emphasis of the organizations manufacturing health care products on making profits against the need of other stakeholder groups (the science and medical community and the consumer rights group) of protecting consumers from danger and increasing benefits (McDonald, 2015). As such, the consumer rights group would have the most compelling and urgent claim to protect the public from the consumption of alternative medicine that has negative benefits. As stated before, the case would be compared to that of Ponzi schemes that promise better outcomes when investing in the projects despite the evidence that they are the worst investment, especially for the retired individuals.

Interpretation of Options

One of the possible options for a moral actor in the case is by identifying the applicable standards, laws, codes as well as policies guiding the manufacture and sale of products (Ferrell & Fraedrich, 2015). A consumer rights group may be a moral actor in this case because of the vast knowledge in codes and standards that apply to the consumption of goods and services. On the other hand, the moral actor can use a standard of care when addressing the ethical concern, because it recommends what a prudent and reasonable professional would do when confronted with a similar situation. For instance, the possible standard of care would that be of approaches used in resolving ethical dilemma concerning Ponzi schemes. The moral justification for referring to policies and standards is that they set the values as well as behaviors that should be upheld in any profession to avoid possible or inherent harm to the individuals (Ferrell & Fraedrich, 2015). Nonetheless, with the standards of care, it is morally justified to apply an approach or method that was used to prevent harm, risks or dangers to specific individuals in a related case.

The Recommended Action

The best and most ethically sound approach to addressing the ethics behind selling homeopathy is using standards of codes, policies and regulations as they concern the sale of goods and products (Ferrell & Fraedrich, 2015). The approach is ethically sound because it entails using the applicable law in bringing into attention the role that the company, Loblaw Ltd., has in safeguarding the welfare of the public. The method is an accurate reflection of my core values because as a Christian and a believer in justice, there are laws that govern human behavior and as such, are meant to prevent possible harm to individuals. Therefore, by following the right course of action or channel of resolving the ethical dilemma in a sound manner, the approach would have aligned with my value of belief in justice and prevention of harm through necessary laws or regulations to control behavior. As such, the proposal cites the legal implications of selling the drug, despite the scientific evidence confirming that it does not enhance the body's capacity for healing.

Argument in Brief

For my case, it would be imperative to apply law in bringing to attention the implications of selling products through deceitful promotion or marketing.