Introduction
Ethics is an issue that should be at the core of the operations of all corporations. The concept of ethics is one that goes hand in hand with corporate responsibility. These concepts, even though important, are sometimes not adhered to by the corporate bodies (Johnson, 2012). This lack of compliance often leads to conflicts that damage corporate image of the organization and could also lead to actual harm, to both the employees and the individuals that the corporate impacts in its daily activities.
Ethics can be described as the principles, based on morals that guide the behavior choices that are made by individuals working collectively. Corporate responsibility, on the other hand, denotes the idea of corporate organizations undertaking, out of their own free will and volition, activities that are beneficial, or desist from undertaking activities detrimental to, the surrounding environment within which they operate (Hurst, 2004).
This paper seeks to evaluate the ethical and corporate responsibility issues that arise in the scenario presented involving Pharmacare. It, in this respect, will assess the issues of ethical treatment of employees, the issue of whistle blowing and how to handle whistleblowers. Further, it will also handle the issues of environmental protection as well as preservation. Finally, the paper will evaluate the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act in relation to ethics and corporate responsibility.
Stakeholders at Pharmacare
Stakeholders in any given situation denote the individuals who are involved in a given activity. This involvement can be within any sphere of the project and can also involve individuals at different levels of involvement. Stakeholders also denote those not directly involved in the project, but who are directly either affected by, or invested in, the outcome of the project. In the present situation, the first stakeholder is the company itself as well as the top management that runs Pharmacare.
A second category of stakeholders is the employees who work for Pharmacare. These employees include those who have been employed by Pharmacare in Africa, as well as, those such as Allen and Ayesha, who have been threatened with dismissal. Further, the patients who buy the medication, as well as, the doctors who prescribe this medication to the patients form part of the relevant stakeholders in this situation.
The government, represented by regulators and environmental protection agencies also equally form part of stakeholders in this context. This is because, as overseers, they have a mandate to ensure that the actions of Pharmacare are not detrimental to the society or the environment. Finally, the people who live in the environs of where Pharmacare and its subsidiary operate are also part of stakeholders. This is because any detriment to the environment that is, as a result, of the actions of Pharmacare and its subsidiaries would affect the community living in those environs. The particular stakeholders in this context are the residents of Colberia.
Ethical Issues in the Treatment of Workers Based in Colberia
In the present scenario, there is evidently a huge disparity between the treatment of the mostly indigenous workers who hail from Colberia and the lives of the rank workers and executives of Pharmacare.
This disparity is one that poses an ethical dilemma. Ethically, there should not be a manifest disparity between the top management and those employees who are considered inconsequential. While it is understandable that top management is paid way above the pay of lower employees such as casual laborers, these bottom rung employees should be offered pay that is at worst, reasonable to sustain a reasonable lifestyle and preferably pay commensurate to the amount of work done (Hurst, 2004).
First, the issue of disparity in pay can be gleaned from the fact that the casual employees, indigenous members of Colberia, live in mud walled houses that are deplorable. This is incomparable to those of executives of Pharmacare, who live in palatial homes in opulence. This is a clear indication of the disparity that exists between these two classes of individuals.
With respect to the issue of payment commensurate to the amount of work done, it is evident that this particular factor is not also taken into consideration by the managers of Pharmacare. The casual laborers have to walk five miles to not only look for and harvest trees, but also carry back loads of the harvest, weighing up to fifty pounds all the way back. One dollar per day is not comparable to the work that is carried out by these individuals.
The two factors above provide the basis for unethical practice and lack of proper corporate responsibility on the part of Pharmacare. This is because the first issue, that of disparity in pay, indicates that while Pharmacare can afford to provide better remuneration to their casual employees they have made a choice not to do so. This, therefore, amounts to exploitation (Hurst, 2004). Since ethics is tied to morality, and since the exploitation of desperate individuals is an act that is immoral, then there is a lack of ethics on the part of Pharmacare on this score.
Legality of Firing Donna, Tom and Ayesha
Ethics and corporate responsibility extend to the area of employee dismissals. While the dismissal of an employee is ultimately the prerogative of the employer, there are laws that require that due process be followed in dismissing an employee and that there is sufficient grounds for such dismissal. Failure to follow such requirements would lead to a finding of wrongful termination which would entitle the employee to either be reinstated or compensated (Johnson, 2012).
Legality of Firing Donna
Donna had been a faithful employee who got sick such that she was unable to go to work. Her sickness arose from the work environment she was subjected to by Pharmacare. Her inability to go to work, therefore, arose as a consequence of the Pharmacare negligence. While it is legal to dismiss her since she is no longer able to work, it is illegal to deny her workman’s compensation. Procedures should be instituted for determining workman’s compensation within the workplace to avoid such instances in the future (Johnson, 2012).
Legality of Firing Tom
The threatened dismissal of Tom is one that arises from his threat to inform the relevant authorities of the deplorable conditions of work at the workplace. This is not a ground for dismissal, and any dismissal arising from this ground would be regarded wrongful and illegal (Johnson, 2012). The organization, to prevent the occurrence of such an event in the future, should implement reporting procedures that enable employees to take issues to a party within the organization without being victimized.
Legality of Firing Ayesha
Ayesha’s threatened firing arises from the fact that she claimed discrimination based on her religion. While this claim was factually false, it is not a ground for her dismissal. Rather, it is imperative that the proper grievance procedure be instituted to ensure that any issues raised by an employee are discussed with the employee and properly determined (Johnson, 2012).
Whistle blowing Opportunities, Obligations and Protections
Whistle blowing denotes the reporting of illegality and ethical practices of an organization by an insider who is privy to these actions. It is important that whistle blowing provisions be put in place within organizations that would allow employees to report various issues without the threat of being victimized. Such a mechanism within the organization would be invaluable to the head of operations at Compcare, Allen Jones. The opportunities that may be available from whistle blowing provisions include the opportunity to remedy any unethical practices that may be going on within the organization (National Audit Office, 2014).
Obligations accruing from instituting such measures within the workplace include the fact that there can be no victimization of the person making the report, no matter how adverse the report is to the organization. This is a positive obligation on the organization. The most important protection that can be gleaned from a whistle-blowing framework within the workplace is the fact that whistle blowing would not be a ground for victimizing those who report the matters to management. Their confidentiality is instead guaranteed, and this eliminates the risk of victimization (National Audit Office, 2014).
Allen would benefit from these benefits of whistle blowing since he would not have to be put in a scenario where he has to be forced to irregularly fire employees such as Tom, who seek to blow the whistle. Further, such a mechanism helps him remedy situations that are deplorable in the workplace.
Pharmacare Environmental Initiative
The environmental position taken by Pharmacare is one that is on the surface and to the public a positive one. The truth of the matter, however, arising from their activities, is the opposite. This double faced stance taken by the company is one that raises ethical concerns. For one, they lobbied against a piece of legislation that was positive for the environment. Further, their activities in Colberia are extremely detrimental to the environment. In the view of this paper, a stance that is taken in public by a corporation should, ethically, carry with it a positive and correlative obligation to follow through and act on these
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act (CERCLA)
The original purpose of the Act as originally constituted was to deal with the issue of the environmental degradation that arose from toxic chemical waste. It ensured environmental protection by imposing a tax on those who spilled and improperly disposed of toxic chemical waste. The provisions of the Act that apply in this scenario is the potentially responsible party provision which looks to organizations to pay for degradation and hazardous waste under CERCLA 107 (a), as well as, CERCLA section 113 (f). These provisions, therefore, apply to the scope of liability and also the amount of compensation (Bearden, 2012).
Conclusion
The above analysis presents a picture of various ethical concerns that arise with reference to the operations of Pharmacare. The ethical issues in the case of Pharmacare are issues that are grave. Therefore, for purposes of salvaging the image of the company as well as shielding it from any action arising from the lack of ethics, these issues should be immediately resolved.
References
Bearden, M. (2012). Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act: A Summary of Superfund Cleanup Authorities and Related Provisions of the Act.
Johnson, D. (2012). Suggestions on Avoiding Lawsuits by Terminated at Will Employees.
Hurst, N. (2004). Corporate Ethics, Governance and Social Responsibility and Social Responsibility: Comparing European Business Ethics and those in the United States.
National Audit Office. (2014). Making a Whistle blowing Policy.