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

? Ethics and Corporate Responsibility in the Workplace and the World Ethics and Corporate Responsibility in the Workplace and the World Introduction Companies big and small have a responsibility to act as responsible citizens, both locally and globally. There is a responsibility to act in the best interest of not only potential customers, but stakeholder’s and the local/international community as well. Decisions that might seem minor today can end up having an enormous impact in the future (Swanton, 2010, p. 151). As such, case studies are a valuable tool to gauge the ethical behavior of a company and to determine what course of action should be taken as future events dictate. PhramaCare is a factitious company, yet the situation presented can be considered likely to happen to almost any type of company, anywhere in the world. This paper will detail various ethical issues ranging from the treatment of indigenous populations to the methods of handling and dealing with whistleblowers. All the while, decisions made will be analyzed and potential consequences discussed. PharmaCare’s Treatment of Colberia’s Indigenous Population Regardless of the economic or political reasons governing a firm’s entry into another country, they have the ethical responsibility to act in the best interests of their host. In this case, PharmaCARE failed to abide by this code of responsible conduct. While there has always and will always be a disparity of wealth existent in the world, PharmaCARE’s lack of compassion in dealing with the indigenous population of Colberia is particularly egregious. Rather than doing their small part in raising the standard of living among the people, they succeeded at continuing to keep the people of the country mired in poverty while they reaped the benefits. A responsible company sees their employees as partners, and even shareholders. As they contribute to the success of the company, they should be properly compensated. Naturally, few would argue that the people of Colberia should receive the same wage as those in the Western world, but they are certainly entitled more than $1 a day, particularly given the backbreaking work they were partaking in. In the end, however, there is little wrong with the executives of PharmaCARE living in luxurious compounds in Colberia. This is a standard practice with international corporations, as many employees leave their home country for years at a time, so they are granted living conditions similar to those that they are used to. This is does not excuse, however, the unethical treatment in terms of salaries and working conditions that the company was engaging in. Actions To Take Against Donna, Tom, and Ayesha Deciding to fire workers is often a painful decision, and one that potentially carries legal ramifications. Since New Jersey is not a right to work state, the situation becomes a bit more muddled. Without having the benefit of reading the contracts of employment for each respective employee, it is difficult to make a determination as to the legality of these particular firings, but in essence they could be termed legal. Donna had begun to develop poor attendance records and, even though she made the claim that it was due to mold in the work environment, Allen could argue otherwise. By properly documenting reported absences, if Donna lacks adequate proof the work environment causing her absentee rate to rise, the firing may be legally justified. It is also generally accepted that companies can protect their reputation against employees who set out to damage it in the public. If the claims made by Tom end up being true, he would certainly have a case against an unjust termination. Barring that, however, Allen would likely prevail in a legal proceeding based on the comments he would make about the company in public. Likewise, Ayesha would need to prove that she was fired based on religious discrimination. If Allen can prove otherwise and demonstrate a history of poor performance, once again he could justify the legal firing of the employee. In the end, however, each of these firings would certainly appear to be unethical and it would be wise for Allen to consider another course of action. Minimizing Risk to the Department and Company In order to minimize risk to not only the department, but to the overall parent company as well, Allen should have a complete system of documentation in place. He should write down each infraction, complete with his own comments, but free from bias as well. In Ayesha’s case, for example, he needs to demonstrate that her religion played no role in her termination, but that it was her own job performance that resulted in this action. In addition, it would be helpful to implement a thorough system of employee evaluations, if such a procedure is not in place already. Such evaluations are useful in heading off potential trouble and litigation, particularly if the results are well documented and signed off by each respective employee on a regular basis. These steps will go a long way towards minimizing the risk to the department and company. Whistle Blowing Opportunities, Obligations, and Protections To answer questions related to Donna and Tom regarding their possible whistle blowing activities, a bit more information would be helpful. Any time an individual or employee makes statements about a person or company, it is quite serious. To be sure, if there are health hazards and risks at play, Donna and Tom were certainly within their ethical rights to report this activity. This is the nature of current whistle blower laws. Did these employees, however, observe the proper chain of command in reporting what they felt was unethical and unsafe business practices? We do not really get a get a clear picture of this. On the one hand, they reportedly made known their concerns to others in the company, but we do not know the specifics. It has been upheld that whistle blowers do have an obligation to report their suspicions first and then, if no action is being taken, they should pursue options going outside of the organization (Swanton, 2010, p. 153). They do have an obligation to report what they see as being detrimental behavior, but they also have a responsibility to the company. In return, their supervisor (Allen in this case) has the duty to protect his staff and to act on their concerns. This would entail going higher up in the company and documenting what has been said. It appears that none of these procedures were taking place in the PharmaCARE organization. PharmaCARE’s Environmental Initiative It certainly does appear a bit hypocritical that PharmaCARE would support certain environmental and conservation efforts publicly, yet work silently behind the scenes to thwart those very efforts. This would not be the first time that large companies have been accused of doing just that, however, and it is difficult to know how to respond. On the one hand, we can say that any company involved in any business endeavor that has the potential to cause harm to the environment has the ethical responsibility to do all they can to minimize that harm. At the end of the day, humans to need to survive and thrive, which will entail some harm being done to the environment over time (Laszlo, 2011, p. 894). In the end, however, sound business and ethical practices dictate that companies work hard to protect the environment and to not leave their footprint behind everywhere they go. In the case of the operation in Colberia, PharmaCARE is violating these principles at nearly every turn. They are using the tribal people of the region to do much of the ‘dirty work’ for them and are giving little back in return. In addition, using centuries old tribal medicine and not allowing the people to profit may certainly be considered a violation of intellectual property rights. In exchange, they appear to be ravaging the land with no set plan of conservation and environmentally responsible behavior in the future. At the very least, the company should have a replanting effort underway and a mechanism by which the lands that are being used today will be returned to their natural state in the future. Other environmentally responsible companies have accomplished this very feat throughout the world. It is not enough for the PharmaCARE to just say that they ‘care’, they must prove it by their actions. By lobbying against environmental initiatives and legislations they are demonstrating their desire to put profit ahead of responsible behavior. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) was initially designed with chemical and petroleum industries in mind. Legislation required companies in these industries to contribute to a superfund, similar to a trust fund that would have billions of dollars available in it to help clean up any environmental problems that might occur due to hazardous materials. The CERCLA requires that certain areas be closed off if they are deemed hazardous, creates a system of penalties for individuals or companies that release or create hazardous waste at a job site, and allows for the use of superfund money in cleanup efforts if the original perpetrators are nowhere to be found (Thomas, 2005, p. 130). Even though it appears that PharmaCARE is not specifically covered under CERCLA, meaning that they would not be required to contribute to the superfund, they would still be responsible for cleaning up any environmental mess they leave behind in Colberia. If they refuse to do so, they may be subject to liabilities owing to the fact that they are an American based and owned company. Conclusion PharmaCARE appears to be a company that grew too large, too quickly. Their intentions, it appears, were solid from the outset. They desired to be a drug company that truly cared about the environment and about helping people. Somewhere along the way, however, they got sidetracked in their principles. Rather than helping the people of Colberia, it certainly appears that they have done both economic and environmental harm. By refusing to address employee health and safety concerns, they have demonstrated a willingness to disregard the welfare of their employees in the hopes of avoiding further financial scrutiny. In addition, the refusal to heed concerns about the drug AD23 resulted in numerous deaths. In the interim, profits were high and executives likely became quite wealthy. In the end, however, greed and lack of compassion became the downfall of the company. Ethics are important for any business. It is obvious that some companies can get away with unethical business practices for a season, but as PharmaCARE has shown us, that behavior will eventually catch up with them. It is important to consider the responsibilities that individual companies have to the public and to the environment. This is the method by which customer loyalty is developed and profits can be sustained in the long run. References Laszlo, Z. (2011). Environmental ethics for business sustainability. International Journal of Social Economics, 38(11/12), 892-899. Swanton, C. (2010). Environmental virtue ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23(1), 145-166. Thomas, S. (2005). CERCLA owner and operator liability. Environmental Policy and Law, 35(3), 130. Read More