[First Last Name]
Business Ethics [Number]
[Date Month Year]
W.R. Grace (Neemix): A Case Analysis
I. Context: History, Circumstances, and Possible Ethical Issues
It was not until 1959 when the powerful insecticidal effect of the Neem trees in India received notice from a German entomologist who observed it spared from a swarm of locust that devoured all nearby foliage (Marden 283-291). Farmers, since immemorial time, had been using the Neem emulsion as crop insecticides. Researchers in India and certain parts of the world identified the active ingredient as azadirachtin, which is not toxic to humans. Researchers in the United States innovated on the extract to produce stable, storable forms, which, in 1992, W.R. Grace & Co. received patient for the derivatives (stabilized azadirachtin in solution and stabilized azadirachtin solution) from the U.S. Patent Office (Patent No. 5124349). In 1994, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency registered it as Neemix for use on food crops. However, the ethical issues rested not on the money; but on the question on whether life, and, in extension, living extracts, can be patented for commercial production, which is largely an ethical issue.
II. Absolutes: The First Ethical Test
My personal absolutes are consistent with the three absolute rights of life (e.g. murder and rape is always ethically wrong), of liberty (e.g. slavery is always ethically wrong), and of property (e.g. theft and lying is always ethically wrong). The ethical issue over Neemix has been argued over patent ownership of life and living extracts. To resolve this issue under the test of absolutes, it should be clarified if, indeed, the patent was on life or only on a modified extract of life. Of course, there is also the question of whether life can be extracted; while keeping that life alive. It is clear, however, that the extract of the Neem tree is different from the life of the Neem tree; unless obtaining the extract will inevitably kill the tree. Since all that is used in preparing Neemix are seeds; then, the Neem tree does not have to die to extract azadirachtin. Thus, on the basis of the absolute right to life, the extraction of azadirachtin does not constitute a violation of this absolute right. Moreover, the application of the absolute right to life implies application on human life, not vegetative life. Thus, even if the life of the Neem tree is taken in the process of extracting azadirachtin, there will be no violation to the absolute right to life.
However, it may be argued, by extension, that the extraction of azadirachtin will kill the Indian farmers (by not benefiting from the commercial proceeds of Neemix), the argument cannot be sustained in the same way that farmers in India will be ‘murdered’ if their domesticated food animals are purchased and processed for food in the United States. In fact, the growers of Neem trees will gain economic benefits from the sales of their Neem seeds; thus, sustaining their lives instead of killing them. The same argument can be pursued in parallel with the absolute right to property (with the Neem trees as the property). In effect, the extraction of azadirachtin from Neem seeds and processing it into Neemix does not violate the absolute rights to life and to property. It is not applicable to the right of liberty.
III. Legal: The Second Ethical Test
Although the Grace product appeared ethical by absolutist criteria, is it legal? Legal ethics, which follow legal positivism, refuse to recognize a moral principle as a condition for any legal proposition (Murphy 22). In the case of Neemix, the legal test will be straightforward on the basis of printed evidence. The lack of previous printed publication on the existence of the Neemix formulation in use, whether commonly or exclusively in India, constitutes the material legal proof of novelty in relation to the process or formulation commonly used among Indian farmers. In this case, it can be demanded from the activists’ side the burden of proof that the Neemix formulation did exist under the traditional formulation. No more moral appeal can be acceptable in the implementation of jurisprudential theory or legal positivism (Marden 284). Thus, as there was no proof otherwise, the Grace patent is legal.
IV. Moral Philosophies
A. Teleological Test: Economic benefit is clear on the part of Grace in the development and commercialization of Neemix. Thus, on its part, the Grace patent is good to the company. However, is it good or bad to the farmers in India? In terms of direct economic benefit from the sales of Neemix, the Indian farmers have no economic benefits. However, indirectly, the farmers benefit from the income from sold Neem seeds as well as from labor engaged in processing seeds in India (Marden 285). Thus, the Grace patent is teleologically ethical.
B. Utilitarianist Test: On the basis of utilitarianist ethics, the greater good to most people, in this case, even beyond the greater good of all Indian farmers, must take precedence in this ethical question. There are two areas of benefits in this issue. First, the Indian farmers, in addition to generating income from the sales of Neem seeds and their local processing, continue to exercise liberty in obtaining Neem extracts for personal use as much as they desire (Marden 285). Second, the availability of Neem products outside India extends the beneficial effect of the Grace patent to other farmers around the world as well. Thus, the patent is ethical.
C. Egoistic Test: Ethical egoism insists that a person’s duty is only towards the best for himself (Rachels 77). From the perspective of W.R. Grace & Co., an egotistic benefit exists in the form of profits from sales of Neemix products. However, is it stealing from Indian farmers? The Grace patent clearly operates in much the same way as Starbucks branding their coffee, which are supplied by Guatemalan or Mexican farmers. From the perspective of the Indian farmers, they derived personal benefits in terms of income.
D. Deontological Test: Kant’s Categorical Imperative (Rachels and Rachels 104-105) sets the universalization of the principle of action as basis for ethics, demanding that Grace must be willing to accept the principle behind the patenting of the Neem extract as universally applicable and available to anyone even against the interest of Grace. Is the act of purchasing local produce and processing them for commercial distribution a valid universal law? This practice is globally widespread to be considered already a universal law. The case of Starbucks and coffee is already mentioned. Other multinationals such as Nestle’ and Hormel do the same. E. Public Relations Test: The image enhancement-preservation objectives make this test complex because public relation is an active discipline. Moreover, any multinationals have their own share of bashings and legal battles with interest groups. Thus, attacks can be nasty and expected. Still, it is natural for companies to counterbalance image attacks and the outcome of the test shows more as the outcome of that counterbalance than the attack. Thus, the test outcome depends highly on the effectiveness of Grace’s image building strategies.
F. Reasonable Person Test: Reasonableness can be either normative or positivist (Miller and Perry 324). Either way, Grace behaved consistently with what a reasonable person does. It found a potentially saleable product to develop and it did, like most companies who want to purchase products from farmers to transform them into profitable and marketable goods.
V. Conclusion
The central point of ethical behavior should follow the first principle of ethics: “Do good and avoid evil” (Pellegrino 471). From all indications, W.R. Grace & Co. followed that.
Works Cited
Marden, Emily. “The Neem Tree Patent: International Conflict over the Commodification of
Life.” Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 1 May 1999, 22(2): 279-294. PDF file.
Murphy, Mark C. “The Natural Law Theory.” (15-28) Golding, Martin P. and William A.
Edmundson (Eds.). The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Print.
Pellegrino, Edmund D. “Things Ought Never Be Done: Moral Absolutes in Clinical Ethics.”
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 2005, 26(1): 469-486. PDF file.
Rachels, James. The Elements of Philosophy. 4th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print.
Rachels, James and Stuart James. The Elements of Philosophy. 7th ed. Columbus, OH: McGraw-
Hill Education, 2011. Print.
Titus, Harold, Marilyn Smith, and Richard Nolan. Living Issues in Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford
