Corporate Responsibility in the Workplace and the World, Research Paper Example

Determine all the stakeholders in this scenario.

There are many stakeholders in this scenario. Firstly, PharmaCARE is a stakeholder as is its subsidiary, CompCARE. Within these two companies, the stakeholders are the CEO and board members, and broad range of employees, from those who develop the drugs, manage the human resources department, and the executives that conduct research and manage affairs in Colberia. In addition, individuals who own PharmaCARE stock and rely on its products for medical treatment are stakeholders as well. In addition, the individuals who live in Colberia are stakeholders. The “healers” who work for small wages rely on PharmaCARE’s employment to improve their quality of life, which at the same time hurts other aspects of life in the village. Regular villagers in Colberia are also stakeholders because PharmaCARE’s involvement in their community impacts their day-to-day life, positively in some aspects and negatively in others.

At another level, stakeholders are Medicare, Medicaid, and VA patients because they are being marketing the new drug. In addition, the doctors who agree to push their patients to take AD23 are stakeholders and they are particularly tied to the success of PharmaCARE if they agree to fax in lists of fake patient names. Although it was already discussed that PharmaCARE employees are stakeholders, it is necessary to mention both Allen and his employees because they impacted by certain aspects of the job that other members of the company are not. These employees include Donna, Tom, and Ayesha who face being fired because the Director of Operations wants to keep the lab conditions quiet.

Analyze the ethics of PharmaCARE’s treatment of the Colberia’s indigenous population and its rank-and-file workers versus that of its executives.

It is clear that PharmaCARE is committing unethical treatment of Colberia’s indigenous population. According to the Office of Research Integrity, it is inappropriate to take advantage of indigenous peoples and cultures for research purposes, although there are some exceptions (ORI, n.d.). In PharmaCARE’s situation, they are requiring the indigenous population to do work that they could be doing themselves. They are violating ethical code by taking advantage of the fact that the Colberians are ready and willing to work for $1.00 a day. In doing so, they are paying these individuals extremely low wages to destroy their own environment and resources. In addition, they are working in unreasonable conditions and performing high levels of physical labor.

It is important to consider the Office of Research Integrity’s ethics guidelines here because PharmaCARE is requiring that these individuals do work for the purpose of medical advancement of United States citizens in addition to their own monetary gain. As a consequence, the principles that PharmaCARE is expected to follow when conducting this research are reciprocity, respect, equality, responsibility, survival and protection, and spirit and integrity. PharmaCARE is violating several of these principles, the most obvious of which is equality. The company is making the indigenous people work hard jobs for $1.00 a day while its executives live in luxury and supervise the work. In order to make this practice ethical, it is essential that if indigenous people will be employed by the company, they should be paid the same wage that level of worker would back in corporate. This would mean these individuals should be paid at least the state minimum wage, which is $7.25 per hour. In addition, to emphasize equality, the PharmaCARE representatives should be living in huts comparable to the ones that the natives are living in. It is unfair for them to enter the Colberian society and claim advanced social status.

Secondly, PharmaCARE is violating their responsibility to the natives of the area they are conducting their research in. While they are certainly allowed to collect native plants for research purposes, they must ensure that they are doing so in a way that protects both the native Colberians and their natural environment. They also must treat the natives with respect, and act mainly on their terms during the duration of the stay. They should interfere in their lives as minimally as possible to conduct the research, and determine a point in which the collection of materials should stop depending on how it impacts the community.

Determine whether Allen could legally fire each of the three (3) workers—Donna, Tom, and Ayesha. Suggest steps he should take to minimize the risks to his department and the company.

According to the principles of at-will employment, Allen could legally fire each of his three workers, Donna, Tom, and Ayesha, at any time. However, it is essential that he takes steps to minimize his risks in doing so by ensuring that he takes the appropriate steps in firing these individuals.

Although Donna was forced to miss work for work-related reasons, it is difficult to determine whether she knew about the mold and whether this contributed to her condition. To ensure that Allen fires her legally, it is important to contact Donna and inform her that her absence is not acceptable and issue a warning that it should not continue. This is an example of progressive discipline, and the warning should be recorded and signed by both parties. Since Donna will likely have recurring absences as a consequence of her illness, the warning will be violated and an employment termination meeting should be held. At this point, there will be reasonable documentation indicating a specific reason that Donna was fired. Although at-will employment indicates she can be let go at any time, it is advantageous for Allen to cite a specific reason.

Although Tom is the best supervisor that Allen has, he could certainly fire him as a consequence of at-will employment. However, it would be advantageous for Tom to make the firing appear that it had occurred for a reason other than his concern with the air quality. Allen could initiate a performance improvement plan with all of his employees and indicate that he expects to see a certain level of improvement within the next few weeks. Since Tom is already well-performing, his performance will need to increase proportionally. At the time of the review, Allen will find that he has not improved to the level that was expected of him, and he will be let go because the company desires someone in his position that can meet these expected goals.

Ayesha can be let go as a consequence of at-will employment as well. Her situation will be simpler because she believes that she didn’t get a promotion as a consequence of her religion. Allen will be able to pull out her progress charts and demonstrate her strengths and weaknesses and discuss them in comparison to the individual selected for supervisor and other employees. She will be made to understand why the decision was made, and that she simply doesn’t have leadership potential. However, the company believes that claiming a position wasn’t obtained due to religion is inaccurate and hurtful to workplace culture and employee morale, and that to prevent this from starting more trouble, she should be let go.

Determine the whistleblowing opportunities, obligations, and protections that could benefit Allen. Explain why and how Allen would benefit.

Since Allen is being put in a rough position, he should participate in the many whistleblowing opportunities he has. Firstly, when Tom suggests that he will report the air quality to OSHA, Allen should agree that this should be done and inform him of the proper anonymous reporting protocol. It is essential that the Director of Operations be mentioned in this report, and it may be beneficial for Allen to submit a report as well. This report should also discuss Donna’s health status to ensure that she is not fired due to her absence from work that was based purely on the lack of health and safety in her workplace. Allen would benefit because his workers would be happy and healthy and the Director of Operations would be required to consider the health of his workers, or risk being fined (OSHA, n.d.).

Second, Allen should report the Director of Operation’s rationale for firing Donna, Tom, and Ayesha to his supervisor and the HR team. It is important for someone at a higher level in the company to know the actions of the Director of Operation’s and allow them to understand the legal action that these individuals could take against the company if they are fired. Allen will benefit from this because since he would be the one firing the employees, he is responsible in part for the legal action they may take against the company.

Lastly, Allen should put a protection in place that defines the characteristics they are looking for in each job position. In the future, this may prevent employees like Ayesha from thinking that a decision was made on the basis of religious views. In addition, it may be useful to add a diversity program to the company to ensure that these individuals don’t feel like they are being left out.

Assess PharmaCARE’s environmental initiative against the backdrop of its anti-environmental lobbying efforts and Colberian activities. Examine if this renders the company’s purported environmental stewardship better or worse and if the company’s public stance should carry an obligation to be a leader in environmental matters. Support the position.

It appears that PharmaCARE is initiating its local environmental initiative as an attempt to cover up the negative impact they are having on the environment in other aspects. While it is helpful to have environmentally packaging and recycling initiatives, the company is not compensating for the environmental damage it is causing in Colberia and as a consequence of its anti-environmental lobbying efforts. If people find out the true status of PharmaCARE’s involvement with the environment, they will find that their actions are contradictory and it will make the company look bad.

The company’s public stance should not be to carry an obligation to be a leader in environmental matters because it will bring attention to the anti-environmental actions they partake in. This will concern many environmentalists, who will look further in to this cause, which could bring about negative media attention that would hurt the company.

Analyze the original purposes of and the changes to Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Determine which provision(s) of CERCLA apply to PharmaCARE in the scenario provided. Support the response.

The current purpose of CERCLA is to ensure “established prohibitions and requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites, provide for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites, and establish a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified” (CERCLA, 1986). Action that must be taken on this basis includes short-term removal of hazards and long-term remedial response. The act was modified to include a revised National Contingency Plan (NCP) in whichthe guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants are provided.

In the scenario provided, PharmaCARE needs to be primarily concerned with the need to “establish a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified”. This is particularly applicable to their involvement on Colberia. It is likely that their actions abroad will damage the environment, and they will attempt to claim that it was not them who caused the toxicity of the area. However, they will need to set aside funds to take care of this cleanup regardless if they were the only pharmaceutical company present on the site.

References

CERCLA. (1986). Cercla Overview. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/cercla.htm

ORI. (n.d.). Human Research. Retrieved from https://ori.hhs.gov/human-subject-research-0

OSHA. (n.d.). Whistleblower Protection Program. Retrieved from http://www.whistleblowers.gov/