The Role of Corporate Responsibility and Ethics in the Workplace - Essay Example

? The Role of Corporate Responsibility and Ethics in the Workplace: A Case Study The Role of Corporate Responsibility and Ethics in the Workplace: A Case Study Introduction All companies have an obligation to act responsibly in society, both on a local and global level. They need to consider what is best not only for their customers, but for investors and the international community in general as well. Even basic decisions made today often bear results far into the future (Swanton, 2010). With this in mind, it is wise to consider both real-life and hypothetical examples of companies in an effort to determine whether certain behaviors are ethical, and to make decisions about future courses of actions. This particular case study looks at a company named PharmaCare, which is a hypothetical pharmaceutics company with operations spanning various places around the globe. The scenario described in the case study is realistic and could apply to any country with an international base of operations. The ensuing sections deal with ethical issues that PharmaCare faces. This ranges from their treatment of local people in Colberia, to issues relating to the treatment of possible whistleblowers. Pharmacare and the Indigenous Population of Colberia Companies have an obligation to act responsibly and ethically in any country that they based their operations in, regardless of any perceived economic or political factors that might come into play. This particular example shows that PharmaCare failed to live up to this expected code of conduct. PharmaCare seemingly was profit driven, like any company throughout the world, yet the exhibited a lack of compassion in dealing with the people of Colberia and their obvious disparity in terms of wealth. The situation presented in the case study is one of paying ridiculously low wages to the people, while flaunting their own wealth openly in the community. They could have chosen to raise wages to a sustainable level in an effort to help the country, yet they opted to ensure that the people of Colberia remained in poverty. All the while, they were generating extreme profits on the backs of local labor. Responsible international companies look at view all of the employees, both domestic and foreign, as partners in the organization. The people of Colberia contributed to the overall early success of PharmaCare, so they should have been more adequately compensated. Wages certainly are not equal around the world, as costs of living of different. So, while it is true that the people of Colberia should not be compensated at the same level as Western employees, they should still be adequately rewarded for their work, particularly for their own medical ingenuity. In this regard, PharmaCare’s actions in Colberia certainly appear to be unethical, particularly when considering wages and working conditions. Donna, Tom, Ayesha: Actions to Take PharmaCare has faced situations with firing employees. These decisions are certainly not to be taken lightly, and often exhibit the potential for legal action to be taken. The company itself is located in New Jersey, which is not currently a right to work state. As such, this situation is bit more difficult to tackle, as employees cannot generally be terminated without proper cause. In reading this case study, without knowing all of the particulars involved, it certainly appears as though the firings would technically be legal, although the circumstances surrounding each should have give PharmaCare reason to pause and consider their actions. In looking at the case of Donna, she did honestly begin to miss quite a bit of work. We do not see where proof of the reasons she missed work were ever justified, other than blaming it on a mold issue in the office. This claim, however, was not proved. Now, if the allegations made by Tom were found to be true, he may very well have a legal case in claiming that this termination was without proper cause. In regards to Ayesha, she would first need to prove that she was being subject to religious discrimination, as we do not read proof of this in the case study. Moving beyond just the legality of each of these firings, however, one must wonder about the corporate ethics that PharmaCare is exhibiting. Allen should certainly pursue other courses of action, and look for ways to reconciling with employees, before subjecting the team to unnecessary terminations. The Process of Minimizing Risk Allen must help his department minimize risk, not only for his own sake, but for the companies as well. He needs to begin this process by developing a better system of documentation. Each infraction that is encountered needs to be written down and priorly accounted for. This needs to include his own recollections of the even, and contain only facts, trying to eliminate any type of bias in the documentation. When considering Ayesha, for example, he should be very clear that her religious beliefs played no role in her firing. In addition, he needs to have documented evidence of the specific instances that led to her termination. This can be used later to justify the need to fire her. Allen should also consider implementing a process of regular employee evaluations, as these can be helpful in future legal proceedings should an employees with consistently poor reviews decide to sue for unlawful termination. These simple procedures will certainly not ensure that the company does not face legal action in the future, but they will certainly serve to minimize risk, and that is often the best that a supervisor, department, and company can hope to do. Obligations to Protect Whistle Blowers Truthfully, more information about Tom and Donna are needed in order to determine how best to protect them as whistleblowers. We need to remember that whistleblower obligations are serious matters. Naturally, if what is being said about a company is true, then the individual(s) need to be protected. These individuals, however, often have the obligation of making sure that their claims are valid and that they can prove them. This is often difficult. In this situation, if there are hazards at work that are detrimental to employee health, then something must be done. Most companies, this one included, have a ;procedure for reporting such concerns, yet it appears that Donna and Tom did not observe them. Donna and Tom certain seemed to be well within their rights to express these concerns, yet we do not know if they followed proper protocol. While they did make their concerns known to others, we do not know how and when this took place. It has been upheld that whistle blowers do have an obligation to report their suspicions first and then, if no action is being taken, they should pursue options going outside of the organization (Swanton, 2010, p. 153). Employees certainly have a duty to report what they see as being harmful behavior, but they also need to show respect for the company. In return, Allen has the duty to protect his staff and to act on their concerns. In this case, Allen should go to company management with his documentation about what has been said. It appears that none of these procedures were taking place in the PharmaCARE organization. Environmental Initiatives and PharmaCare It certainly does appear odd that the company would publicly support certain environmental and conservation efforts, while demonstrating behind the scenes an ability to destroy those very efforts. Many large companies throughout history have certainly been accused of committing this odd behavior, however, and it is difficult to know how to respond. On the one hand, we can say that any company involved in any business endeavor that has the potential to cause harm to the environment has the ethical responsibility to do all they can to minimize that harm. At the end of the day, humans to need to survive and thrive, which will entail some harm being done to the environment over time (Laszlo, 2011, p. 894). It can be said, however, that business and ethical protocol dictates that companies should work diligently to protect the environment and to not leave their footprint behind everywhere they go. As PharmaCare operated in Colberia, it certainly appears that these principles were violated in numerous situations. They were, in essence, using the tribal people of the region to do much of the difficult environmental work for them, yet gave back very little to the community. They were basically steeling intellectual property by using centuries old tribal medicine and not allowing the people to profit. In exchange, they appear to be ravaging the land with no set plan of conservation and environmentally responsible behavior in the future. At the very least, the company should have a replanting effort underway and a mechanism by which the lands that are being used today will be returned to their natural state in the future. Other environmentally responsible companies have accomplished this very feat throughout the world. It is not enough for the PharmaCARE to just say that they ‘care’, they must prove it by their actions. By lobbying against environmental initiatives and legislations they are demonstrating their desire to put profit ahead of responsible behavior. Analysis of Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) was initially created in regards to considering the unique aspect of the chemical and petroleum industry. Legislation required companies in these industries to contribute to a superfund, similar to a trust fund that would have billions of dollars available in it to help clean up any environmental problems that might occur due to hazardous materials. The CERCLA requires that certain areas be closed off if they are deemed hazardous, creates a system of penalties for individuals or companies that release or create hazardous waste at a job site, and allows for the use of superfund money in cleanup efforts if the original perpetrators are nowhere to be found (Thomas, 2005, p. 130). Even though it appears that PharmaCARE is not specifically covered under CERCLA, meaning that they would not be required to contribute to the superfund, they should still be held responsible to clean up any environmental mess that they left behind in Colberia. If they refuse to do so, they should certainly be held legally and financial responsible for cleanup costs, seeing that they are an American based and owned company. Conclusion PharmaCARE looks like a company that simply grew too large, far too quickly. Their aim and objectives, it appears, seemed to be solid from the beginning. They wanted to be a drug company that truly cared about the environment and about helping people. We have no indication to believe otherwise, but somewhere along the way, ambition took over and began to erode their principles. Rather than helping the people of Colberia, it certainly appears that they have done both economic and environmental harm. By refusing to address employee health and safety concerns, they have demonstrated a willingness to disregard the welfare of their employees in the hopes of avoiding further financial scrutiny. In addition, the refusal to heed concerns about the drug AD23 resulted in numerous deaths. In the interim, profits were high and executives likely became quite wealthy. In the end, however, greed and lack of compassion became the downfall of the company. Ethics are important for any business. It is obvious that some companies can get away with unethical business practices for a season, but as PharmaCARE has shown us, that behavior will eventually catch up with them. It is important to consider the responsibilities that individual companies have to the public and to the environment. This is the method by which customer loyalty is developed and profits can be sustained in the long run. References Laszlo, Z. (2011). Environmental ethics for business sustainability. International Journal of Social Economics, 38(11/12), 892-899. Swanton, C. (2010). Environmental virtue ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23(1), 145-166. Thomas, S. (2005). CERCLA owner and operator liability. Environmental Policy and Law, 35(3), 130. Read More