Ethics and Corporate Responsibility in the Workplace and the World - Assignment Example

? Assignment 2: Ethics and Corporate Responsibility in the Workplace and the World Stakeholders are individuals or groups of people who have interest in any organization. They are the people who stand to lose or gain from the failure or success of an organization due to the actions, objectives and policies adopted. The stakeholders in this scenario include PharmaCARE board of directors, the PharmaCARE Chief Executive Officer, its subsidiary in Africa; CompCARE and its employees. Others include the government agencies i.e. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that is responsible for the environmental conservation and regulating the pharmaceutical and manufacturing industry. (Glynn & Richman, 2007, p.23). The Colberians ought to be treated well as any other CompCARE employee. CompCARE depends on these locals for the collection of the native plants from deep the forest so as to enable them manufacture their drugs. In any corporate organization, corporate social responsibility is essential to the business since it is a way of appreciating the hospitality of the local community. It’s very clear that in this era of global competition between corporate organizations, many companies have realized the need to be part of the society in which they operate. Organizations that pay attention to the principle of being involved in social responsibility benefit from the public as their goods and services will be favored for consumption by consumers. (Stone, 2007, p.243-255). One of the ways in which CompCARE has engaged itself in corporate social responsibility in Colberia is by employing the locals to collect native plants from the forest. Giving the locals an opportunity to work in the firm’s factory is a positive move from the company as this will help in improving their lives hence making them realize the importance of such a company setting up manufacturing plant in their area. However, the Colberians are receiving inhumane treatment since they are expected to carry full baskets of up to fifty pounds from deep the forest and walk up to five miles and then at the end of the day they are paid only one dollar. Due to this, the standards of living in Colberia have remained low and most of the people are living in primitive huts with no running water or electricity. (Mallor, 2010, p.102). On the other side, PharmaCARE’s executives are enjoying lavish lives with their compounds fully furnished with a swimming pool, tennis courts and a golf course. This kind of treatment of the Colberians is not only inhumane but also unethical. It will be courteous for PharmaCARE to extend some basic services like running water and electricity to the locals as a sign of appreciation to their hospitality. Those employed by PharmaCARE deserve fair treatment ranging from paying them fairly in commensurate with the work done and also providing good working conditions. Inhumane treatment of workers is not only unethical but also bad business practice that will lead creation of a culture of distrust from both the employees and the locals and this may lead to rebellion and expensive lawsuits. (Stone, 2007, p.223). In accordance to the Employment-at-will doctrine, an employer can terminate the employment contract of his or her employee at any time for any reason except one that is illegal or for no reason without incurring legal liability. It also points out that an employee can leave his or her current job at any time without any reason and with no adverse legal consequences. (Glynn & Richman, 2007, p.67). Therefore in regard to Tom’s case that involves threatening to complain to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) about the quality of air in the lab, it’s clear that he has decided to act as whistleblower since he is exposing the life-threatening conditions in PharmaCARE’s labs. It is quite clear that PharmaCARE management didn’t take into consideration the environmental impact of their actions to both the local and the laboratory technicians. This is a sign of negligence despite the technicians reporting signs of mold around the air vents. In as much as the company may not have a whistle blower policy, sacking Tom will be considered a retaliatory move since he is seeking to expose illegal activities in the company and this may give him an opportunity to sue the company for damages. Whistle-blowing actions are protected under the statutory exceptions that protect against retaliation. Therefore it will not be advisable for Allen to fire Tom but the best practice will be to address his complains about the health conditions of the lab immediately. (Glynn & Richman, 2007, p.108). Another employee Donna has filed workers’ compensation after she could no longer perform her duties because she developed bronchial problems due to the poor working conditions in PharmaCARE’s facilities. Her claim for compensation is justified since it is out of company’s negligence that she developed the complications. Firing her is illegal since she is protected by the exception in the Employment-at-will doctrine i.e. the covenant of good faith. According to this exception, any dismissal or denial of any rights of any employee is illegal if it is done with malicious intentions. Therefore the best approach for Allen would be to ensure that the Donna gets compensated by the company. In this way, the company will avoid running into expensive lawsuits. (Clarkson, Miller &Cross, 2012, p.203). Ayesha’s allegations that she has not been promoted to be a supervisor because she is a Muslim cannot be proved. Despite being a hardworking employee, her boss Allen did not believe she has the necessary management or people skills to be a good supervisor. It is the mandate of the company’s directors to evaluate the ability of the employees in order for them to be promoted. In regard to allegations of discrimination on basis of religion, unless Ayesha can substantiate her claims, they will be considered as allegations. The company’s management reserves the right to promote and demote any employee based on merit and performance. Therefore the best way will be to explain to her that there is no discrimination against her and since she no longer has faith in the company, it will be right for her to leave PharmaCARE. (Mallor, 2010, p.98-102). Allen has an opportunity of being a whistleblower by reporting the illegal and environmentally unfriendly activities of PharmaCARE to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); a federal agency responsible for ensuring safe and healthful working conditions for all employees. He could report of the state of the labs and how it has affected the health of the employees leading to headaches and chronic bronchial problems. Another whistle blowing opportunity involves the research of reformulating the top-selling diabetes drugs to maximize their effects and opening a subsidiary to avoid Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scrutiny. All these activities are whistleblowing opportunities that may help Allen when he no longer be able to work since he is also already affected by the unhealthy working conditions. (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012, p.44-49). As Allen plans to be a whistleblower, he has protection and obligations as defined under whistleblower statutes in the OSHA office. According to these statutes, any employee has a constitutional right of expression on any issues related to the duties assigned to them. They also have the right to disclose any illegal and life threatening activities within their place of work. These disclosures may include unlawful suppression of information regarding unethical conduct that is a threat or is likely to threaten public health. These statutes also provide for obligations in as far as whistleblowing is concerned. It states that every employee is obliged to make any protected disclosures as soon they are aware of them in order to avoid any danger to public safety and health. Therefore, Allen acting as a whistleblower will be protected under this statute. (Clarkson, Miller &Cross, 2012, p.67) PharmaCARE has built a reputation as a one of the world’s most successful pharmaceutical companies that is conscious of the environment. This goes in line with its recent launch of an environmental caring initiative; We CARE about YOUR world pledging its commitment to the environment. The initiative involves recycling and making changes to the packaging materials to more environmentally friendly ones. This is despite the fact that the company’s lobbying efforts have successfully defeated environmental laws and other regulations that include the extension of the superfund tax created by Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012, p.167-176). However in contrary to its pledge in regard to commitment towards environmental conservation, PharmaCARE’s activities in Colberia continue to degrade the environment and threaten lives. One such instance is a case where its research found out that one of its top-selling diabetes drugs might slow the progression of Alzheimer’s disease. Therefore, its pharmacists began reformulating that drug to maximize the effect and in order to avoid Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scrutiny. It also established a wholly-owned subsidiary, CompCARE to sell this new formulation to individuals on a prescription basis though it’s illegal to sell drugs in bulk for general use. This is not only illegal but also life threatening to these individuals who are buying these drugs, which have not been inspected by the FDA, over the counter. (Glynn & Richman, 2007, p.156). As production increased, CompCare’s employees began to experience health disorders like coughing, sneezing and headaches. One of the employees contracted chronic bronchial problems and could no longer perform her duties. The employees made complaints to their supervisor but all they received were threats of imminent dismissal if they didn’t keep quiet. It also emerged that consumers of the PharmaCARE’s drugs started to suffer from heart attacks at an alarming rate which eventually lead to over two hundred cardiac deaths. All this occurred due to CompCare’s negligence and pretending to be committed to environmental conservation. All this renders PharmaCARE’s purported environmental stewardship worse and therefore its public stance should not carry any obligation to be a leader in environmental matters since it’s very clear that they have prioritized profits at the expense of caring for the environment. (Mallor, 2010, p.98).  The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, was enacted into law by Congress in December, 1980. It introduced tax on the petroleum and manufacturing industries and also provided for a broader federal authority in regard to direct response to release or threatened release of hazardous substances that may be harmful to the public. The original purpose of the CERCLA was to establish prohibitions and requirements in regard to abandoned and closed hazardous waste sites, provide for the liability of the people responsible for release of hazardous waste and also establish a trust fund that will be used for clean up when the people responsible cannot be identified. (Meiners, Ringleb & Edwards, 2012, p.343). However in 1986, the CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). These changes included the creation of new settlement tools and enforcement authorities and also increasing the size of the superfund trust to cater for the many more sites that were later identified for cleaning. The amendments also put into consideration the need to revise the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) in order to ensure that correct evaluation was done on the degree of risk associated with uncontrolled hazardous waste sites to human health and the environment. (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012, p.186). CERCLA authorizes two provisions; the first one is for short-term removals that provide for prompt action to be taken to address actual or likely release of hazardous substances. The second provision is the long-term action response that seeks to permanently and significantly reduce the effects of the release or threats of releases of hazardous substance that could be life threatening. Therefore, the second provision will be the most appropriate to be applied to PharmaCARE’s case in Colberia. This is because the current release of hazardous waste in the labs is life threatening and there is a threat of future release of more hazardous substances hence a long-term remedial response will be appropriate. (Clarkson, Miller &Cross, 2012, p.200). In conclusion, PharmaCARE’s executives are living a luxurious life in a compound, fully furnished with tennis courts, a swimming pool and a golf course while the locals are living in primitive huts with no running water or electricity. This kind of treatment is not only unethical but inhumane. Secondly, Allen could not just fire the three employees for making complains unless there is a cause as defined in the Employment-at-Will doctrine. He also has an opportunity to be a whistleblower by reporting to the OSHA the illegal and unethical activities practiced by PharmaCARE that are also a threat to public safety and health. He is protected under the whistleblower statute and hence has an obligation to make the disclosure as soon as possible. Lastly, the provision for long-term action response in the CERCLA is the most appropriate for application in PharmaCARE’s scenario. It seeks to permanently and significantly reduce the effects of the release or threats of releases of hazardous substances. References Clarkson, K. W., Miller, R. L., Cross, F. B., & Clarkson, K. W. (2012). Business law: Text and cases: Legal, ethical, global, and corporate environment. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Glynn, T. P., & Richman, R. (2007).Employment law: Private ordering and its limitations. New York: Aspen Publishers. Halbert, T., & Ingulli, E. (2012). Law & ethics in the business environment (7th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning Mallor, J. P. (2010). Business law: The ethical, global, and e-commerce environment (14th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Meiners, R. E., Ringleb, A. H., & Edwards, F. L. (2012). The legal environment of business (11th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Stone, K. V. (2007). Revisiting the At-Will Employment Doctrine: Imposed Terms, Implied Terms, and the Normative World of the Workplace. Industrial Law Journal, 36(1), 84-101. doi: 10.1093/indlaw/dwl042 Read More