Introduction
PhamaCARE is a top tier pharmaceutical manufacturing company with programs that aim at solving medical problems for poor people through discounts and partnerships. Based in New Jersey, PhamaCARE has operations across the world, and presence in an African country, Colberia. Most people in Colberia live below poverty line, and they are ready to do anything for a living, no matter how lowly it pays.
Scenario and Stakeholders
PhamaCARE has struck a deal with traditional healers in Colberia that will get them exchanging knowledge about their medical herbs with the company. The arrangement has opened opportunities for thousands of people, who rummage in the bushes in search of these herbs. PhamaCARE pays the workers in dollars per day, with the average salary being one dollar per day. The workers would walk many miles harvesting plants that would weigh about fifty pounds per basket.
The situation has many stakeholders, among them, the government of Colberia, PhamaCARE executives and shareholders as well as the employees of the company. The people of Colberia play a core role in the scenario while the customers for PhamaCARE play a supporting cast role in the situation. The workers in Colberia have families who depend on the salaries paid by PhamaCARE.
First, the government of Colberia should have played a negotiator role for the traditional healers. The investors in PhamaCARE know about the company’s activities in Colberia, and they stand to benefit in abnormal profits. Employees and executives of PhamaCARE benefit from rewards on extraordinary performance of the company while customers become critical stakeholders because, by buying the products of PhamaCARE, they are contributing to the growth of the company. The workers get paid one dollar per day, and they have children and families, playing out as parties in the scenario.
Human rights issues and recommendations
Issues
PhamaCARE pays people of Colberia $1 per day for a whole day job, infringing the fundamental human right to fair compensation. The working conditions are terrible, as people have to walk for more than five miles and carry loads weighing fifty pounds. The hard labor might affect the health of the workers due to the physical strain of walking and carrying heavy baskets of the harvests. Paying low wages exposes the people of Colberia to poverty, as they cannot afford basic amenities like food and shelter, ending up living in shackles and slums.
PhamaCARE’s actions in Colberia go against the international labor laws that guarantee workers social policy. The wages of one dollar per day are not enough for workers to take insurance policies or save for retirement. As a multinational company, social policy programs should be extended to all employees in all the countries where the company operates.
The lack of fairness in the treatment of employees goes against the principles of equity. The executives live in prime areas with top notch facilities and playgrounds while the workers live in huts that do not have electricity. The company should consider upholding the principles of equity by making sure that all the employees live in decent houses and have enough money to cater for their needs.
Lastly, every worker has a right to a working contract that takes into consideration the amount of expertise required to do a job and the hours spent in working for the company. The employees of PhamaCARE in Colberia do not have written contracts, and their engagement with the company can be terminated any time, exposing them to exploitation and intimidation by the executives. The mistreatment of the workers in Colberia; their lack of a contract, extended working hours, little pay and poor living conditions presents a double standard case for Colberia.
Recommended changes
PhamaCARE should improve their partnership with the people of Colberia from wage-based contract to formal employment. This idea would address the issue of exploitation and poor wages as well as better the living conditions of the people. The sure way to make employees' lives better is to improve their earnings so as to enable them afford such things like food, clothing and housing.
Empowering employees through training provision of transport would save them a lot of time spent on the way every day. Walking five miles every day with a load weighing fifty pounds is exploitative, and having Lorries and pickups to pick the harvests from the plantations would save the workers lots of struggle. It will also increase productivity for PhamaCARE as they will be in a position to manufacture more medicine using the increased volumes of raw materials.
Double standards: Environmental Initiative versus anti-environmental lobbying and Colberian activities
PhamaCARE has migrated to green initiatives promoting recycling and environment-friendly packaging in an initiative dubbed ‘we care for the world'. On the other hand, the company has succeeded in lobbying for the extension of the Superfund tax. It has also defeated some environmental laws and regulations. PhamaCARE comes out as a significant force and influence in corridors of power, where the executives are in a position to get what they want while creating a perfect image to people and consumers of the medicine.
Ideally, it does not add up how a company gives with one hand and takes with the other. PhamaCARE discounts medicine for many poor people, and even offers scholarships, but the same time, the company exploits poor citizens in Colberia. The initiative to use green technologies at the back of lobbying to defeat and extend environmental regulations is insincere and against sustainability principles. The lack of consistency of the policies of PhamaCARE faults their commitment to the promotion of conservation and care for the environment.
PhamaCARE actions and ethical theories
Utilitarian
According to the theory of utilitarianism, decisions should be pegged on their impact on the vast majority. That means that policies and initiatives by PhamaCARE should target the good of the majority of beneficiaries. PhamaCARE is exploiting workers in Colberia to manufacture a drug that benefits millions of people worldwide, hence, going by the good of the majority, the company is ethical (Kay, 1997).
Deontology
Basing the actions of PhamaCARE of deontology theories, that some actions are unfair and immoral no matter how much good comes out them, it can be argued that the treatment of the workers in Colberia is not ethical (Sanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2007). Exploiting people in Africa, no matter how much benefit it has towards supporting the lives of millions of people through medication is purely unethical.
Virtue ethics and ethics of care
If one uses the virtue ethics theory, then the fact that PhamaCARE uses double standards makes it unethical, because the of the shady character. Same way, using the ethics of care theory, where parties in a partnership are judged on their vulnerabilities, then the failure of PhamaCARE to protect the vulnerable workers in Colberia makes the company unethical. It means that the company does not pass the ethics test on three out of four theories.
My ethical compass
PhamaCARE is a big company that can pay its workers well. Buying harvests from locals of Colberia at $1 is inhuman and brings out the company as very exploitative. Moreover, the under-hand environment lobbying and the public relations gimmick that portrays the company as environmentally sensitive is a classic example of a corrupt company. That makes PhamaCARE very unethical.
Comparison with Volkswagen Environment Scandal (2015)
In September 2015, revelations came out that Volkswagen, the German car manufacturer, had installed software in eleven million diesel cars that cheated on the emissions tests of the engines (Surowiecki, 2015). The scandal cost the company millions of dollars in penalties and pushed the CEO to resign. The share of the company lost 20% of its value in the first one month after the news broke out, and the image of Volkswagen came into question.
Volkswagen had established itself as a company that cares for the environment, with compliance to environmental regulations. People bought their cars with confidence that, by driving a Volkswagen, they were contributing to climate management moves that aim to reduce global warming. The scandal is comparable to the PhamaCARE move to cheat people that they are keen on green energy and environment conservation initiatives, while, at the same time, pushing for the elimination of environmental regulations.
The management teams in both companies know that the company is working towards less environmental control while putting an image of support for less pollution and green solutions. Also, the companies understand the full impact of their actions, but, due to greed and fascination with profits, they indulge in activities that hurt the environment. Corruption and political controls stand at the center of the activities of PhamaCARE and Volkswagen.
Conclusion
PhamaCARE is a perfect example of a company that is hiding behind perfect image to exploit employees and suppliers. At the front door, PhamaCARE comes out as a company that cares for the environment and supports environment management strategies, only to find out that the company is fighting the same strategies it pretends to be using for conservation. The company fails on the test of ethics using the main theories, and it can be compared to Volkswagen’s lying about emissions from its cars, a scandal that almost brought the company down.
References
Kay, C. D. (1997, January 2). Wofford College. Retrieved from sites.wofford.edu/kaycd/utilitarianism/
Sanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2007, November 21). Deontological Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/
Surowiecki, J. (2015, September 24). The Environmental Legacy of the Volkswagen Scandal - The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-environmental-legacy-of-the-volkswagen-scandal
