Abstract
Scott Deeter and Ventria operate a biotechnology firm in California. The firm wants to commercialize a pharmaceutical product, which uses an innovative technology. The technology utilizes genetically modified cereals to produce proteins used as pharmaceuticals.
Currently, there are a number of problems faced by the firm. As such, the technology adopted has to be scrutinized by several regulatory bodies before being approved. The project has been criticized for being unethical. Critics have purported that the selected plants may crossbreed with wild plants leading to interference of the ecosystem (Lawrence & Weber, 2010, p. 490). In addition, it is alleged that a number of consumers may be allergic to the plant. The firm must tackle the above problems for their project to be successful.
Financiers, government institutions, and environmentalists have a stake in the firm’s actions. The relevant government institutions have to provide the firm with the required regulations for it to carry on with its pharmaceutical projects (Lawrence & Weber, 2010, p. 492). Federal and local governments determine the powers of these institutions. The environmentalists will ensure that the pharmaceutical plant identified for the project does not interfere with the environment. The state laws will determine the environmentalists’ power. On the other hand, the financiers will provide the required funds to meet the cost of operations. Financial regulatory bodies will govern the fanciers’ power.
To succeed in its project, the firm must convince all the stakeholders that the project is safe, viable, and causes no harm to the ecosystem (Lawrence & Weber, 2010, p. 493). During the dialogue with the employers, several options might emerge. The firm might be denied with a license to carry out its operations. Similarly, the firm might be requested to comprehensively illustrate how the project will be useful. In addition, the firm’s project might be approved if found to be useful.
If Ventria opts to utilize a political action strategy in wooing the stakeholders to support its project, it must educate the politicians about the project’s goals and benefits (Lawrence & Weber, 2010, p. 495). As such, the politicians are likely to reject the firm’s project because it utilizes new technology, which is not clearly understood by the politicians. To ensure that they make sound decisions about the project, the firm should educate them with respect to the benefits the society will get from the initiative. Through this, the politicians will help the firm in acquiring the required permits by amending or enacting the necessary laws.
If dialogue or political action is unsuccessful, the firm can move its operations to another country that will welcome its innovative ideas. There, the company will work with the authorities in ensuring that necessary permits are obtained (Lawrence & Weber, 2010, p. 498). The country should prioritize countries with hunger and malnutrition issues.
For now, Ventrai should sensitize the public about its new project. Given that the technology is new in the market, the public should be informed about its advantages and disadvantages (Lawrence & Weber, 2010, p. 500). The firm should also work hand in hand with the environmentalists in coming up with a plant that will not pose any harm to the ecosystem. Equally, the firm should focus on addressing the issues raised by its critics with respect to its project. Through this, the misconceptions associated with the project will be demystified.
Reference List
Lawrence, A., & Weber, J. (2010). Business and society: Stakeholders, ethics, public policy (12th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.