Ethics and Corporate Responsibility in the Workplace and the World
Question 1
Ethics, as well as corporate responsibility, are a high necessity in the working industry as they play part in determining success. In the presented case stakeholders are the persons who hold mutual interests in regard to the success of the corporation. Stakeholders are responsible for financial as well as resource funding to the organization. In the pharmaCare scenario, the stakeholders are particularly the investors, consumers or the community, creditors, employees, as well as the government. These are the persons that can impact or be impacted by the decisions that are developed by the corporation in which they support. Stakeholders have the right of knowing how the company fairs in terms of operation, sales and financial status in order to make decisions on whether they should continue offering their support. Consumers or the community both in Africa and New Jersey are primary stakeholders because they offer a market for the company’s produce. On the other hand, investors offer financial as well as resource support to the organization to ensure that there is continuity of the business operations. Employees play a huge part in running operations, productivity and offering services to the consumers (Palmer, 2015).
Question 2
The leaders and administrators of PharmaCare have had the capability of transforming the organization in gaining high margins of profit. This has thus given the corporation the chance to redistribute its employees to the state of Colberia. The corporation’s executives are involved in luxurious living while the employees can barely afford a living. Taking advantage of their positions and what they offer to the community their compounds are well equipped with electricity, swimming pool, gaming course and continuous supply of water. In Colberia, all this is considered to be a waste since the country is not stable and the supply of such resources is minimal.
Employees are required to work for long hours in the manufacturing plant only to get a single dollar each day. They live in low lives in huts which having nothing more to offer other than shelter and they have to walk for miles to the company each day to fulfill their obligations. This, therefore, shows that the employees are not valued as they are supposed to. A human resource is an essential tool that every organization has and it should be treated right. The working has no involved benefits which should be house, transport or even health insurance. With the minimum salary, the employees get they cannot be able to live standardized lives. Environmental ruin, in as additional issue that increases pollution damages. This may result in the increase of diseases in the area thus leading to poor living and low performance which may lower the general economic growth. The treatment of the employees in the manufacturing firm is completely unfair since the executives entitle themselves to expensive living.
Human rights are an entitlement of every human person globally regardless of their social status, identity, nationality, language, color, color sex, religion and so on. Discrimination should therefore not be subjected to anyone in particular as good treatment is a living necessity in the modern society (Tencati, & Perrini, 2011). It is thus wrong that the corporation does not offer adequate payment as required by the labor laws and offers unfavorable working as well as living conditions to the employees. This is a form of greed in which the executives utilizes the reputation and performance of the corporation for their personal gains. In order for the corporation to act in an ethical way as it progresses, it should offer a much better pay to the manufacturing plant employees. This is to ensure that they are able to cater for their basic needs as well as for the purpose of living a standardized existence. In addition, the pay should be accompanied by benefits such as health insurance and housing pays as a form of corporate responsibility. Also, a safe and a favorable working condition is a necessity to increase employee’s morale as well as the general productivity.
Despite the fact that the corporation has held increased social contributions it can be described as a show off since its responsibility is not real but it is aimed at generating high profits. The corporation built a good reputation by pledging to lead in conserving the surrounding but just for pretense. After Colbert's individual had made a pharmaceutical discovery the corporation steals from them without caring.
Question 3
The environmental initiative by the corporation in opposition to anti surrounding lobbying in Colberia is straight of the contradiction of its assertion on being environmentally friendly and responsible as a corporate. It is true that the corporation highly encourages and promotes green qualifications but it is also involved in the waning of the environmental laws. This is something that is wrong ethically and cannot, therefore, be accounted as being responsible. It is the duty of the corporation to offer protection to the community against environmental damages as the community offers it both a market for the products as well as labor.
The corporation is involved in a type of green marketing that is purposed at increasing the awareness that the products offered by the corporation are friendly to the surrounding. This can be termed as a green wash which involves transforming the labels of products and names in evoking natural products environment which is made of harmful chemicals to campaigns where companies that are involved in high pollution are termed to be friendly to the environment (Hill & McDonnell, (2012). PharmaCare is doing all that since it needs to be seen as a corporation that cares about the surrounding and that is also responsible to the community. However, this is wrong since the corporation is unethically exploiting Colberian state based on the low standards of living while they gain high profits. The corporation’s purported surrounding stewardship is arguably due to the zero presence of environmental care and neglecting for offer a safe work setting for production. The corporation is thus obligated to be an administrator of all the surrounding matters and mainly because it’s public reputation has been gained through building the perception of environmental matters leader.
Question 4
Based on the care of ethics PharmaCare treatment of the native persons is morally wrong. In addition, Utilitarianism is a moral concept that asserts that the best performance is those that increases entitles wellness. The corporation focused on increasing its benefits without caring for the community (Bainbridge, 2015). Deontology is an obligation to nature in which the corporation did not fulfill despite its claim to be responsible socially and environmentally. According to Virtue ethics, the character of an individual is an essential determinant of moral thinking and not necessarily based on rules. The executives, therefore, failed to act morally since they were only interested in personal gains and failed to follow their obligations (Bainbridge, 2015).
Question 5
The PharmaCare scenario is similar to most of the actual situations that have occurred in the corporate world. Most organizations are determined of attaining success and therefore they are willing to do everything to entice the consumers. Modernity has placed the surrounding and health measures at a great priority to the global consumers due to the rising health issues which are causing more damage each day. It is, therefore, the responsibility of corporations to ensure that the lives of individuals are guarded through conserving and caring for the environment. A real case instance can best be offered by Pfizer Corporation which is one of the leading pharmaceutical companies. Some years back the corporation had manufactured a drug named as Torcetrapib and the corporation got into intensified marketing by persuading Doctor’s that their product was the best (Harper & Langreth, 2006). As compared to the normal drugs that was utilized boosting the cholesterol level and also lowering it to a normal level as compared to the competing products (Harper & Langreth, 2006). However, its production was never the best since employees were working on low pays with poor working conditions. Its reputation had been built based on humanity care as well its claim to be socially responsible in enhancing individuals lives. However, by the end of the year 2006, the drug had caused several deaths (Harper & Langreth, 2006). This damaged its image highly despite the fact that it was impacting the economy as well as the society in a positive way. The company had made more investments from the high profits that it was generating thus ignoring to honor the community’s wellness (Harper & Langreth, 2006). The company was forced to lay off some of the staffs based on low sales. The company failed to value its plans.
Conclusion
Organizations are responsible for promoting business practices that are ethical at any given time. The internal and the external objective of every corporation should be aligned to ensure that the community’s wellness is sustained. A good reputation should be earned and sustained through ethical performances and not only for the benefits of the corporation. Business would at all times be conducted in an ethical as well as a reliable way to generate a positive image for the corporation. Fostering the environment favors both the community as well as the corporation as the ability of the business to increase its general performance and productivity is enhanced. It is crucial for a corporation to gain and maintain trust from the community which helps in the continuity of support from all the stakeholders. From the analysis, it is clear that the corporation failed to act ethically since it did not respect individual’s rights as well as its claim of being environmentally friendly. This, therefore, made it to be hypocritical since it was only interested in what the community was offering but not fulfilling its obligation to honor their responsibility. The corporation failed to treat its employees right by discriminating them based on their social status while the administrators lived luxuriously which is decently wrong.
References
Bainbridge, S. (2015). Corporate Law. West Academic.
Harper, M & Langreth, R. (2006). Pfizer’s Warning Signs. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/2006/12/07/pfizer-cholesterol-drug-biz-cz_mh_1208pfizer.html
Hill, C. A., & McDonnell, B. H. (2012). Research handbook on the economics of corporate law. Cheltenham, U.K: Edward Elgar.
Palmer, D. E. (2015). Handbook of research on business ethics and corporate responsibilities. IGI Global.
Tencati, A., & Perrini, F. (2011). Business Ethics and Corporate Sustainability. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub.
