Part One
The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)
The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies or IFRC is the largest humanitarian network in the world. It reaches more than one hundred and fifty million people in one hundred and eighty seven National Societies. This is done through the work of more than thirteen million volunteers.
These national societies and volunteers work together in dealing with disasters. They work during and after natural and other disasters and health related emergencies to improve lives and meet the needs of vulnerable people. They do this without any form of discrimination on the basis of nationality, religious beliefs, class, race or political opinions.
The organization is guided by their collective action plan, Strategy 2020, to tackle some of the major development and humanitarian challenges faced by people in this decade. They are committed in their work, and guided by their motto to save lives and change the minds and attitudes of people concerning certain major humanitarian issues.
The organization’s biggest strength is in its volunteer network, its community-based expertise and its ability to give a voice to many vulnerable people globally. By improving the standards for humanitarian conditions, working together as partners in helping in development, responding to various disasters, supporting safer and healthier communities, the organization helps reduce vulnerabilities, strengthens resilience and fosters a culture of love and peace all over the world.
Ethical dilemma faced by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
In 2003, the IFRC realized that the war on terror was leading to double standards being used for humanitarian aid. Millions of other people all over the world had been forgotten and were suffering due to disasters which were not war- related.
International efforts by various nations to curb terrorism globally were posing ethical dilemmas which threatened the legitimacy of many humanitarian organizations. There was an increasing shift by humanitarian agencies and donors towards more high profile human aid efforts in conflicts which were politically strategic such as Afghanistan and Iraq, while other chronic emergencies in third world countries such as Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Angola received little or no attention.
In the month of April alone, 2003, the United States raised US$ 1.7 billion for Iraq. This was in sharp contrast to US$ 1 billion shortage in funds needed to avert starvation for 40 million people in African across twenty two countries. In Angola, there were more than four million people who depended on humanitarian assistance for survival. The International Federation made an emergency appeal and four months later, less than 4% was covered.
The dilemma facing the IFRC was whether to ignore the war torn areas and focus more on the other disasters all over the world which appeared to have been forgotten by all other humanitarian organizations. Since they were expected to be impartial in their delivery of relief aid, it meant providing aid where it was most needed, and not based on political influence from powerful nations. Military forces often assumed humanitarian roles as well and this blurred the lines between military and civilian humanitarian assistance. This could result in aid workers from the IFRC and other organizations losing the impartial status they once enjoyed and being targeted as enemies.
The IFRC decided to raise awareness on this issue. They conducted a survey on the DRC and other countries in need of humanitarian aid and the help they received. They learnt from this survey that millions of people had died from treatable diseases and other preventable problems. This led them to focus more on other problems not related to the war. This was because the humanitarian needs of war-torn nations were covered by many of the developed countries. Although some of the developed countries objected to this, it was legal and was approved by many of the parties involved. The result of this was a more balanced distribution of relief products.
Part Two
Pepsi Co Inc.
In brief, PepsiCo Inc. is an American multinational company which primarily deals with the manufacture of beverages, snacks, and grain based products. It has its headquarters in Purchase, New York, but its business operations are spread across the globe. Currently, the company has more than 297,000 employees, working in various parts of the world. Although the company primarily deals with bottling and distribution, it also licenses other bottlers within specific regions to do that business.
Having been established in 1965, after the merger of Pepsi-Cola Company with Frito-Lay, Inc., the company has weathered many storms and continued to grow from strength to strength. The most phenomenal development is evidenced by the fact that its operations have expanded from the conventional soft drinks business to a much wider business platform that not only includes beverages, but also includes other food products. The most recent accomplishments of PepsiCo Inc. include the acquisition of Tropicana in 1998 and the business merger with the Quaker Oats (2001). In particular, the merger with Quaker Oats was a milestone because it saw the addition of the Gatorade brand into the company’s array of products.
Other areas that indicate that PepsiCo Inc. is, indeed, a business leader include the fact that twenty two of the company’s product lines generated more than 1 billion dollars in retail sales each in the year 2011. It is also essential to note that the company’s products were sold in over 200 countries in the world. Again, the net revenues realized in the 2011 financial year 43.3 billion dollars. The huge profitability, combined with the huge volumes of retail sales realized, makes PepsiCo Inc. the second biggest food manufacturing company globally; in terms of revenue generation, PepsiCo Inc. is recognized as the biggest food company in North America. The person associated with the phenomenal growth of PepsiCo Inc. is Indra Krishnamurthy Nooyi- the CEO who has been at the helm since the year 2006.
Ethical dilemma facing Pepsi Co
In 2012, PepsiCo drew criticism for working together with biotech companies which use technology drawn from human fetuses to come up with new food products. Debi Vinnedge, the executive director of Children of God for Life in Florida, exposed abortion horrors, claiming that taste testing research was being carried out by Senomyx, a biotech company, using cells from aborted babies. The company was conducting flavor-enhancing research by use of kidney cells from aborted babies to produce cells similar to human taste receptors. PepsiCo was working together with this company, according to Debi.
The argument was that this same research could be carried out done ethically using consenting adults’ stem cells, in a more appropriate manner. This led to much social outcry and a national boycott on PepsiCo products. Some people felt that it was unethical for them to put human products in food while others were opposed to aborting babies for research.
Ralph Shortey, the Oklahoma State Senator, proposed a bill meant to ban research using aborted fetuses, especially with regard to food products. This bill never became law. Although this research was legal, many people questioned whether or not it was ethical.
Pepsi Co later announces that they had cut all ties with Senomyx and that they would no longer do business with them or funding their research. This news was received with much joy, ending the Pepsi boycott. The boycott had led to huge losses for PepsiCo.
Part Three
Personal Reflections
The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)
In the case of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, their response to the moral dilemma was responsible and morally acceptable. The moral dilemma was not in any way the company’s fault, but resulted from circumstances beyond their control. The moral dilemma resulted from other humanitarian organizations paying too much attention to the countries which were at war, even at the expense of other nations which at the time had more serious humanitarian needs.
Although helping the war victims was necessary, the countries which were offering humanitarian assistance were the same countries responsible for having created a humanitarian need in the first place. Nations like the United States and Britain played the biggest role in funding the humanitarian condition in Afghanistan and Iran, and yet they were the cause of the war in the first place. They had created the problem and were now spending billions of dollars trying to reduce the seriousness of it.
Another factor to consider is that IFRC had other responsibilities as well. Its sole responsibility was not to war- torn countries, but to all nations with any form of humanitarian crisis. There were many nations in Africa and Latin America which were suffering due to famine, floods, earthquakes and disease and were in dire need of humanitarian assistance. Bearing in mind that the war- torn countries were also receiving help from other sources, the IFRC were justified to focus their attention elsewhere. Spending all their resources in one area would not have been right as this defeats their mission. Focusing on the war- torn nations would have also exposed the volunteers who had been sent there to unnecessary risks and the possibility of death.
Pepsi Co Inc.
In its response towards the ethical dilemma, Pepsi Co Inc. acted in a morally responsible manner. It was wrong for them to get involved with that type of research in the first place and was therefore right to stop.
Pepsi Co Inc. was responsible for the creation of the ethical dilemma. They chose to get into that business relationship with Senomyx, even though they knew that this was a controversial issue. Many people are opposed to the ideas of conducting research using embryo cells. What made the matter worse was the fact that the research was not for medical reasons, but purely for profit. Although people are generally opposed to research using embryo cells, they find it easier to accept if this research will lead to lives being saved. This was not the case for PepsiCo. Their involvement in the research was purely for profit, not to improve health. This made it ethically wrong.
Their resolution of the problem was appropriate, although they could have done more than what they did. They should have also withdrawn all the products which had been made using this human tissue from the market. They could have easily prevented this problem by not getting involved in that arrangement in the first place. This could have save them the many losses they incurred as a result of the boycott.
Part Four
Critique
The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies used utilitarianism in making its decision concerning the moral dilemma. They considered how their actions would reduce suffering, as this was the main agenda of their work. One of the things they considered is how their actions were likely to lead to the greater good and maximize on utility. The organization considered that the other countries affected by disasters were in need of more help than the war- torn countries which were already receiving this help.
This approach was the best course of action because it considered the greater good. Although the war- torn countries were also suffering, they had help coming from other directions. The other suffering nations were not receiving much help from elsewhere and this put them at a very disadvantaged position. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies considered all these before arrive at their decision. They decided to offer their help to the group in need of help the most without endangering their volunteers.
Pepsi Co Inc. was guided by egoism in making its decisions. This was what got them into the dilemma. According to this theory, people ought to do only that which serves their personal interests. When PepsiCo chose to get into that agreement with Senomyx, they did not consider how their actions were going to affect other people, especially the people who bought their products. Their only interest was making profit, without regarding how this affected other people.
The problem with this approach, it could lead to other people suffering in the process. PepsiCo did not bear this in mind when signing that contract with Senomyx. They failed to consider how people who were opposed to abortion or research using human embryos would react to their decision. Had they foreseen their reaction, it is possible that they would have taken a different course of action. They should have instead used moral relativism. This would have enabled them to understand that what appears morally okay for them may not necessarily be morally right for other people, enabling them, to anticipate their reaction.
In order to run an ethical business, one should not only consider what the law says, but also what the society in which the business is located believes. The company should also consider what its clients believe especially with regard to morality. Failure to consider this could lead to losses or a poor reputation for the company.
When making decisions in business, one must not only consider the possibility of making profits but also how these decisions will affect people in their society and their clients all over the world. The decisions they make should agree with the general beliefs of the public and their clients. They should not only consider the monetary factor and the likelihood of increasing revenue but also whether or not their decisions will increase human suffering. If these decisions are in any way controversial, or if they are in a moral grey area, then the company must tread very carefully on the matter as one wrong move could adversely affect their business.
References
Colorado Right to Life. (2012, April 30). Pepsi: Aborted Baby Cells in Drink Research. Retrieved July 16, 2013, from Colorado Right to Life: http://coloradortl.org/Pepsi
Herper, M. (2012, January 27). Biotech's Fear Factor. Retrieved July 16, 2013, from Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/01/27/fetal-cells-in-soda-not-quite-the-
iscomfort-behind-the-controversy/
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies . (2008). International
Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies - Annual Report 2008. Geneva: Red Cross Red Crescent.
Lukes, S. (2008). Moral Relativism. New York: Picador.
Smart, C. (1973). Utilitarianism:For and Against. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Stoddard, B. (1997). Pepsi: 100 Years. New Jersey: General Pub. Group.
