Corporate Responsibility in the Workplace and the World - Term Paper Example

Stakeholders are those individuals or groups who have an interest in and are affected by the goals, operations or activities of the organization (Mullins, 2010). In the case of PharmaCare, the stakeholders include the employees and management of the company. The stakeholders also include the distributers and suppliers of the pharmaceutical products offered by the company. The other stakeholders include the healers from Colbeira state who are willing to share free knowledge about different cures. The shareholders in the company are also stakeholders since they have an interest in its operations. The end use customers of the products offered by the company are also stakeholders who are impacted by the operations of the company. It can also be seen that the regulatory authorities who oversee the operations of the company are also regarded as the other stakeholders in this particular case. 2. The concept of ethics is primarily concerned with differentiating between something that is good from bad (Robbins, 1993). By any standard, it can be seen that the conduct of PharmaCare in Colberia is unethical as a result of the fact that the indigenous population is treated in a bad manner compared to its executives. First and foremost, it can be seen that the healers in this area have volunteered to give their knowledge for free whilst the company is generating lots of revenue from this practice. The other issue is that these indigenous workers work for only $1 per day and they walk for five miles into the jungle to harvest the plants required for manufacturing medicine. These indigenous people also carry heavy loads on their backs which can weigh as much as 20 pounds. The other issue of concern is that the indigenous workers live in primitive huts that do not have electricity or running water. Overall, the activities of the company in Colberia have destroyed the habitat in the area as well as endangered native species. However, the executives of PharmaCare live in a luxury compound that is comprised of a tennis court, golf course and swimming pool. The compound is electrified and it has running water. This is in stark contrast with the miserable lives being led by the majority of the residents of Colberia who are also the labourers at the above mentioned company. This practice amounts to exploitation and it should not be condoned since it is designed to enrich other people at the expense of the local people who should also benefit from their natural resources. The practice by the company shows that it does not take into account the concept of corporate social responsibility in its practice since it totally ignores the needs and interests of the indigenous people who are also supposed to be beneficiaries from the resources that are being plundered by a foreign company. 3. Allen has no legal basis to fire Ayesha, Donna and Tom. These people raised genuine issues that should be dealt with in an amicable way instead of firing them. Ayesha raised a complaint that she has not been promoted by virtue of being a Muslim. This is regarded as discrimination and it has no room in a democracy. All employees should be treated as equal and important to the organization. Donna got sick from the bad working environment in the company and filed for worker’s compensation. This is a genuine case given that the employer has an obligation to make sure that the workplace environment is safe and clean for the benefit of the employees. Thom has also threatened to file a complaint with OSHA as a result of the poor working environment of PharmaCare Company. According to the United States Department of Labour (nd), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Act of 1970 states that companies must ensure “safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women.” It can be seen that Allen cannot legally fire the three mentioned people above since they have genuine complaints. Otherwise, any attempt to fire them will discredit the company since it may be viewed as engaging in unethical practices by different stakeholders. In order to minimise the risks, Allen should not fire the employees but he should try to talk to them nicely and offer them a nice deal as compensation. In case of Ayesha, he should just promise that he will look into the issue and he will also escalate it to the company executives. In case of Tom, Allen should make sure that he positively responds to the issue raised and try to work out solutions that can be implemented in order to correct the issue of bad working environment. Donna who got seek at work should be compensated since this will help to protect the image of the company rather that viewed as bad. This can lead to loss of credibility in the company among the stakeholders. 4. Whistle blowing opportunities that are available for Allen is that he may raise the issue with other executives in the company and try to explain as well as to convince them that he is being forced to act in an unethical way. Allen should be very clear that this practice would lead to the downfall of the company and he should suggest viable solutions that can be implemented before the issue is blown out of proportion. At least, if the solution is found within the company before it is blown out to the other third parties, it may help the company to safeguard its image. This will also help to protect Allen and his department since he is not going to be victimised by his boss if the issue has been brought to the attention of the other executive members in the organization. Allen will also benefit in that he will get recognition from the other members of the organization if the problem has been handled internally. In other words, if the issue is blown out to other people outside the organization, it may be difficult for the organization to reconstruct its already tarnished image. Therefore, the company should make sure that it continues to enjoy the trust of the stakeholders in order for it to operate viably. The other scenario that is likely to happen is that if outsiders get wind of the bad practice of the company, they can capitalise on that opportunity so that they put everything possible in place to discredit its image. One this issue has been publicized, the company is likely to be put under public scrutiny. This scenario may draw a lot of interest from the members of the public as well as the stakeholders since they may be interested in establishing the authenticity of the company in its operations. Loyalty among the consumers in particular towards the products offered by the company is mainly determined by the trust they have in the organization. 5. PharmCare’s environmental initiative is ironic given that its activities in Colberia are detrimental to the environment. Its purported stance on environmental stewardship can render the company worse if the public company’s stance should carry an obligation to be a leader in environmental matters. It seems that the company is basking in the glory of the fact that its activities which are detrimental to the environment have not yet been made public. This entails that the members of the public are not yet aware of the bad practice by the company. Once they learn about the negative impact it is causing to the environment, they are likely to raise concerns for the company to be accountable for its actions. It can be seen that the company is practicing what may be referred to as double standards. On the other hand, it advocates something good for the environment as well as the stakeholders at large but on the other hand, it acts in a completely opposite way. As noted in the case study, the company’s activities in Colberia are leaving a trail of destruction to the environment and this is not what it has promulgated in its environmental policy. Once these activities have been publicised, the company stands high chances of losing credibility from the stakeholders. This may also affect its viability since the stakeholders may end up shunning its activities. This leads to loss of business and eventually, the company may be forced to fold its operations. 6. According to EPAUS (2011), the original purpose of The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, was to “respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment.” This Act specifically dealt with issue related to disposal of hazardous materials in the environment. In the given scenario, the clause that is related to it is the one which states that CERCLA: “established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified.” In this case, PharmCare should contribute to the fund so that the responsible authorities can use the money to clean the environment in the event that it does not want to directly involve itself in rectifying the environmental issues that count have been caused by its actions. The Act also entails that each organization should be liable for its operations and should make sure that it does not negatively contribute to the destruction of the environment. Therefore, this provision of the Act is applicable to the case of PharmCare discussed above. In order to gain the trust of the people in the environment in which the company is operating, it should be accountable for its impact on the environment. References Environmental Protection Agency US (2011). CERCLA Overview. Viewed from: . Mullins, L.J. (2010). Management & Organizational Behaviour. New York: Pearson. Robbins, S.P. (1993). Organisational behaviour: Concepts, controversies and applications.6th Edition. NJ: Prentice Hall. United States Department of Labour. “Occupational Safety and Health Adminstration (OSHA) Act 1970. Viewed from: . Read More