Ethics and Corporate Responsibility in the Workplace - Research Paper Example

Ethics and Corporate Responsibility in the Workplace and the World Ethics and Corporate Responsibility in the Workplace and the World This paper will examine the ethical business practice of PharmaCARE particularly on how the company relates with the environment and the workers of Colberia. In the process, this paper will review the characteristics of PharmaCare’s stakeholders and analyze its human rights issues specifically on how it treated its workers. Appropriate ethical theories will then be identified to compare the actions of the company against such ethical theories. It will reveal that despite of PharmaCARE sponsorship and initiative such as We Care about YOUR World that committed the company to the environmental practices, the company is still unethical because it has also lobbied for the defeat of environmental laws and regulations and exploited the workers and environment of Colberia. Stakeholder characteristics PharmaCARE is one of the world’s most successful pharmaceutical companies based in New Jersey, USA. Its shareholders consists of the stockholders of the company, its customers who consumes its products, its employees, the regulatory agencies and the general public. The stockholders of PharmaCARE are primarily concerned with the return of their investment in the company and is open to any means possible that would enhance the company’s bottom line. The employees of PharmaCARE especially its top executive is selectively ethical who would only pursue initiatives that are not damaging to the company’s business and would defeat any government regulations that the company do not like. For example, PharmaCARE sponsors healthcare educational programs and scholarships and even launched We Care about YOUR World that committed the company to the environmental practices such as recycling but on the other hand, PharmaCARE has also lobbied for the defeat of environmental laws and regulations and has exploited the people of Colberia by paying them only $1.00 a day for harvesting plants and walking five miles into and out of the jungle carrying baskets that weigh up to 50 pounds. The customers of PharmaCARE are primarily concerned with cheap medications while the regulatory agencies are concerned whether PharmaCARE has complied with its regulations. The general public trusts that PharmaCARE is a reputable company that practice responsible corporate citizenship. Human rights issues presented by PharmaCare The labor practices of PharmaCARE in Colberia is unfair because the company only pays its workers $1.00 a day for harvesting plants and walking five miles into and out of the jungle carrying baskets up to 50 pounds. This practice should change because it violates basic human rights to fair and the following are the recommended change. Recommendation: a. PharmaCARE should increase the salary of its Colberia employees according to the fair wage of the country of Colberia. The $1.00 salary for a day is unfair by any standard. b. PharmaCARE executive should cut back on their luxury and instead increase the salary of the Colberia workers. c. PharmaCARE should cut back and regulate its activities in Colberia because its current operation have destroyed its habitat and endangered species. It should make its operation environmentally sustainable. Assess PharmaCare environmental initiatives PharmaCARE environmental initiative is designed to enhance the corporate image of the company with the end of earning the goodwill of its customers and general public. As a company, PharmaCARE is insincere in committing to clean and sustainable environmental practices. At the outside, the company may appear to be practicing good corporate citizenship by launching the initiative We CARE about YOUR World that pledges the company to commit to sustainable environmental business practice such as recycling and other green initiatives. The company however also has lobbying efforts that has already defeated environmental laws and regulations that could be destructive to company interest. In addition, PharmaCARE operation in Colberia does not reflect environmental sensitivity as its operation has destroyed habitat and endangered native species due to its extensive activity. Comparison of PharmaCare actions according to ethical theories of; a. Utilitarianism – PharmaCARE actions as a company is consistent with utilitarianism ethics. Utilitarianism is a philosophical and ethical construct by John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham who presupposed the “principle of utility” or more popularly known as the “the greatest happiness principle” (Mill, 1962). This ethical guidelines argues that a certain course of action will be elected based on the “happiness” or benefit that will be derived from it. In the case of PharmaCARE, it is very clear that the company followed the principle of utilitarianism. PharmaCARE used the initiative We CARE about YOUR World initiative not as an act of genuine concern for the environment but to enhance its corporate image to the public. It is because it was also active in defeating environmental laws and regulations that was detrimental to its interest as a company. Also, the way the company treated the workers of Colberia is extremely utilitarian as they just paid them a pittance of $1.00 a day so that their executives can live in luxury. b. Deontology – deontology as an ethical guideline is based on rules and mandates that to be ethical, one has to follow the law, rules and regulations. PharmaCARE as a company does not fall in this category because it lobbied for the law that it did not like which meant that it never had the intention to follow them because it is inimical to their interest. c. Virtue ethics – virtue ethics is an ethical guideline that spouse that an individual or company should do good and do the right thing regardless of consequences. By the standard of virtue ethics, PharmaCARE actions are clearly consistent with it because its corporate initiatives are only designed to enhance the image of the company and not to genuinely do the right thing as a company. PharmaCARE as company did not launch any initiative to do good but rather to enhance its image as a company knowing that the public are now sensitive about the environmental practices of business organizations. d. Ethics of care PharmaCARE as a company neither care for the environment nor for its people. This is evident in two ways. First, PharmaCARE may have launched the We CARE about YOUR World initiative but it also lobbied and defeated environmental laws. Paying $1.00 a day for its Colberia workers while living in luxury is not indicate of ethics of care. The company’s extensive activities in Colberia that destroyed habitat and endangered species also does not manifest any care for the environment. e. My own moral/ethical compass I do not agree with the initiatives of PharmaCARE because it is tantamount to deceiving the public by presenting the business as an environmentally friendly company when it is not especially with how it treated its employee in Colberia where they are paid with only $1 while its executives are living in luxury. Compare PharmaCARE actions with another company PharmaCARE actions can be compared with Apple whose third party vendors resorted to unfair labor practices and hired child workers to make the components of iPhones cheap. Just like PharmaCARE, Apple also has a reputation to protect and this was even stated in Apple’s report that they are committed to the highest form of social responsibility in their supply base, that they would require their suppliers to practice ideal labor practice in accordance to Apple’s Supplier Code of Conduct that promote dignity of labor, human right, safe working environment and environmentally sound business practice (Apple Inc.,, 2012 pg. 3). Yet, Apple’s major supplier Foxconn employed horrible labor practices to the point that it drove its employees to suicide whose frequency are hard to ignore (Greene, 2012). The workplace of Apple’s vendor Foxconn is also comparable to PharmaCARE where its workers have to walk five miles in and out of the jungle carrying basket weighing 50 pounds. Foxconn workplaces can be described as sweat shops or labor camps where its abusive labor practices has driven employees into suicide (Malone, 2010). When this report came out in the media, Apple’s image as a company was hurt and their sales temporarily affected. Apple had to conduct a supplier audit and assure the general public that such labor practices are not tolerated by the company to restore pubic confidence to the company. The similarity between PharmaCARE and Apple is that it is Apple’s third party vendor who committed the unfair labor practice. Whether Apple knew about it or not is debatable but the point is, the unfair labor practices committed by Foxconn is a responsibility of Apple. The nature of exploitation is also the same. In Foxconn, the third party vendor is cheating on the pay of its workers while at PharmaCARE, its Colberia workers are paid $1.00 for harvesting at a five mile jungle carrying 50 pound basket. Both companies also projects an ideal corporate citizenship to the general public. The main difference between the two companies is that Apple do not lobby against any environment laws while having the pretension to commit to environmental practices just like what PharmaCARE did. Also, Apple’s involvement in unfair labor practices is not deliberate because it is its suppliers who committed it while in the case of PharmaCARE, it is the company who exploited the workers of Colberia. Conclusion The case of PharmaCARE realistically demonstrated the tendency of business to resort to less than ideal means to protect the interest of the corporation. (Crane and Matten, 2006). As an organization, PharmaCARE operates to make money and its initiatives such as We Care about YOUR World did not necessarily mean that it truly cared for the environment but rather as a PR tool consistent with its objective to enhance the image of the company that would make it profitable. PharmaCARE may even justify that as a free market business entity, it is only answerable to its shareholders to improve the value of their investment (Halbert and Ingulli, 2012) and thus, employing PR initiative for the environment while lobbying against is justified including the exploitation of Colberia workers and its environment. This may work for the short term but experience has taught us that eventually, the company’s unethical practices will eventually be divulged costing the business more. We have already seen it in the case of Enron and WorldCom to name a few and these experiences taught us that it would be better and even more profitable in the long-run to be genuinely ethical in operating the business. References Andrew Malone for the Daily Mail. (2010, June 11). Revealed: Inside the Chinese suicide sweatshop where workers toil in 34-hour shifts to make your iPod. Retrieved May 23, 2015, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285980/Revealed-Inside-Chinese-suicide-sweatshop-workers-toil-34-hour-shifts-make-iPod.html Supplier Responsibility. (n.d.). Retrieved May 23, 2015, from http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/pdf/Apple_SR_2012_Progress_Report.pdf Crane, Andrew; Matten, Dirk. Business Ethics, 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2006 Greene, J. (2012). Riots, suicides, and other issues in Foxconns iPhone factories - CNET. Retrieved May 23, 2015, from http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57515968-37/riots-suicides-and-other-issues-in-foxconns-iphone-factories/ Halbert, T., & Ingulli, E. (2012). Law & ethics in the business environment (7th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.  Mill, John Stuart (1962). Utilitarianism and Other Writings, ed. Mary Warnock (called “Utilitarianism”).  Cleveland:  World Publishing Company. Read More