Ethics and Corporate Responsibility

Determine all the stakeholders in this scenario.
Ever since the theory and the practice of corporate social responsibility or CSR became to be adopted by corporations, there has been a concomitant increase in the attention given to all those impacted and affected by the activities of the corporations. This has given rise to stakeholder management instead of stockholder management alone.
A stakeholder is someone who has an interest in the functioning of the enterprise or the business and is affected and impacted by the operations of the enterprise. Like with all other companies, PharmaCARE has many stakeholders and has an inherent responsibility towards them. It is often said that pharmaceutical companies have many stakeholders because of the nature of their business since their operations impact and affect interests and constituencies. In the case of PharmaCARE, the stakeholders are all the patients who buy and use the medicines made by it including the ones who bought the Alzheimers drug; the families of the patients; the pharmacists who stock and sell the drugs; the nurses and the psychologists who participate in the administration of the drug; the government responsible for regulating the activities of the company; the competitors of PharmaCARE; the suppliers who are part of the supply chain; and most importantly, the employees and the communities in and around the manufacturing facilities of PharmaCARE who sustain the operations of the company (Werther, 2010, 93).
The case highlights the fact that no company can afford to alienate or offend its stakeholders and as the consequences for PharmaCARE reveal, breaking laws for shorter term profits does not entail any gains for it. indeed, the management team at the company broke the compact and the contract (explicit and implicit) between the company and its stakeholders when they chose turn a blind eye to the corrupt practices as well as ignore the complaints about unethical treatment of its employees. In conclusion, PharmaCARE fall from grace is testament to the fact that stakeholder management is as important as stockholder management.  Analyze the ethics of PharmaCARE treatment of the Colberia's indigenous population and its rank-and-file workers versus that of its executives.
Many corporations in the pursuit of profits often ride over the rights of the less privileged and ignore the concerns of the communities in and around their manufacturing facilities. Despite opposition from activists and media glare internationally, many corporations continue to exploit the native populations especially when they have a presence in the developing countries of the Third World. As the case highlights, Pharmacies treated its employees and the Corbelians in particular n an unethical and discriminatory manner. Workplace ethics are norms to be followed by corporations in their treatment of employees and PharmaCARE has been found to be severely lacking in its ethical treatment of its employees and the Corbelians in particular. Not only did the company resort to discrimination and exploitation, it also broke several laws pertaining to the fair and ethical treatment of its employees. Some of the laws, which the company broke, are the Fair Labor Standards Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As we shall discuss in the next paragraph, PharmaCARE is guilty of outright malfeasance and gross negligence as well as violating the laws governing treatment of employees (Grad, 1982, 1).
The Fair Labor Standards Act sets the minimum hourly wage rate, which is now hovering around $7.25 a day as well as prescribes a 40-hour working week. PharmaCARE violated the provisions of this act when they made the Corbelians work longer hours and carry heavy loads for a meager amount, which was about a dollar a day. Indeed, the Corbelians have the right to insist that their hard work must be compensated and they must be recomposed for their work in acquiring the herbs, which the company uses to make huge profits. The defense of the company was that this law did not apply to the Corbelians as they were foreigners and hence, exempt from the rights entailed in this law. However, close readings of the law as well as the humanitarian aspect of treating employees are concerned reveals that the executives at PharmaCARE were indeed guilty in the eyes of the law as well as being unethical in their behavior (Werther, 2010, 138). Determine whether Allen could legally fire each of the three (3) workers-Donna, Tom, and Ayesha. Suggest steps he should take to minimize the risks to his department and the company. The law clearly states that Allen cannot fire the three employees in a manner that is discriminatory, retaliatory, or if the employees complain about the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines. For Allen, to be able to fire the three employees, he needs to have sufficient reason and evidence of poor performance or gross misconduct from the employees. Indeed, as mentioned earlier, the law is very clear that the firing of employees cannot be arbitrary and without reason. Moreover, Tom has been complaining about the poor air quality in the lab and hence, Allen would be violating the provisions of the OSHA Act, which was passed to ensure that employees had a safe and healthy working environment. Further, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has several laws that explicitly prohibit discrimination at the workplace and Ayesha can complain about discrimination at the workplace. As for Donna, she has a perfect attendance record and she only stated missing work when she developed severe bronchitis caused by the molds in the air vent. Therefore, she can take legal option under the OSHA Act.
As for the steps that Allen can take to minimize the risks to his department and the company as a whole, he can report the operations manager to the federal authorities as well as improve the working environment. This would ensure that the company is not seen in a negative light and that the external impact to the companys image and reputation would be minimized. The reasons outlined in the previous paragraph about how Allen cannot legally fire the employees mentioned are very relevant and pertinent to the contemporary times as there are many organizations facing similar situations with their employees and hence, this case study is instructive of the ways and means through which such situations can be handled. In conclusion, Allen cannot fire the three workers though he can minimize the risks to his department and to the organization (Clemons, 2001, 534).
Determine the whistleblowing opportunities, obligations, and protections that could benefit Allen. Explain why and how Allen would benefit. The concept of whistleblowing has received widespread attention in recent years because of the increasing instances of corporate fraud and malfeasance, which means that whistleblowers can spot, and report unethical and fraudulent behavior which impacts the stakeholders of the company and is beneficial to them instead of suffering monetary and emotional losses once the scandals are uncovered. It is for this matter that whistleblowing policies have been adopted by many organizations and have become vital components of the organizational processes. The whistleblowers act in ways that is captured by the adage A Stitch in Time saves nine meaning that bringing to light the potential legal and ethical issues impacting organizations can help everyone. A whistleblower should not only be protected but also encouraged to report other frauds and malfeasance. As we shall discuss subsequently, Allen could have done several things instead of being cowed down by the Operation Managers threat to keep his mouth shut and suffering health problems therefore.
For instance, Allen could have tried talking to his supervisor about the poor working environment that endangers the health of the employees and results in risky practices. In case his manager could not provide him with any assistance, Allen could have bypassed hierarchy and taken the matter up with the senior management and leadership. As a last resort, he could have reported the matter to the federal or the governmental authorities. There are many avenues for reporting unethical behavior and organizations like OSHA exist to ensure that proper safety and risk precautions are being taken to ensure a healthy working environment. The key aspect to note is that in the case of PharmaCARE, there was systemic malfeasance much like in the infamous case of the energy giant, Enron, and hence, the potential actions available to Allen must be seen from this perspective. In other words, when the entire organization and its functioning in unethical ways is condoned by the organizational leadership, people like Allen have no choice but to report the matter to the Federal Authorities. This means that Allen could have acted on his conscience and not cowed down due to fear. As the history of corporate America reveals, whistleblowing acts are usually from people like Allen who could not take it any longer (Lipman, 2012, 80).
Assess PharmaCARE environmental initiative against the backdrop of its anti-environmental lobbying efforts and Colberian activities. Examine if this renders the company’s purported environmental stewardship better or worse and if the company’s public stance should carry an obligation to be a leader in environmental matters. Support the position.
PharmaCARE environmental initiatives are nothing to write home about and can be considered a sham and a deceit on the various stakeholders involved with the organization. As can be seen from their treatment of the Corbelians and their abysmal track record of corporate and social responsibility, PharmaCARE is anything but an ethical and responsible organization. Indeed, it can be said that the culture of profits before people and the widespread abuses of human rights as well as flouting of environmental norms are all deeply ingrained in the organizational DNA, which makes the company and its purported efforts at responsibility a total lie. Added to this is the fact that PharmaCARE does not bother about its own employees as can be seen from the descriptions of the travails faced by its employees such as Allen. Without having internal checks and balances, it is nigh impossible for any corporate to instill values and follow norms and this is exactly the case with PharmaCARE that has thrown all caution to the winds and engaged and indulged in rapacious and self serving behavior.
The other notable aspect of PharmaCARE and its supposed stewardship of environmental causes is a huge hoax perpetuated on its stakeholders. The company has a responsibility towards its employees and towards its stakeholders who include the Corbelians and the communities around its manufacturing facilities. Worse, PharmaCARE does not even provide a safe and healthy working environment to its own employees as can be seen from the way it stores and disposes of hazardous material including toxic waste. The companys public stance must indeed carry an obligation towards it stakeholders in environmental and social aspects and this is something that is sorely lacking as far its pursuit of profits above anything else are concerned. Further, PharmaCARE has consistently broken federal and state rules and regulations and has flouted the social and environmental norms. Therefore, it does not deserve any sympathy or recompense from any stakeholder. The conclusion that one arrives at after perusing the case is that urgent and drastic measures have to be taken by the authorities and the Federal Agencies to rectify the situation immediately. This can go as far as the disbanding of the company is concerned and the penal action against its employees is concerned.
Analyze the original purposes of and the changes to Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Determine which provision(s) of CERCLA apply to PharmaCARE in the scenario provided. Support the response.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) were enacted by Congress to provide authority and powers to the government and the Federal Agencies engaged in the regulation of hazardous waste and cleanup the sites of the corporations, which produce hazardous substances. The passage of the CERCLA act mandated the requirements for disposing of hazardous waste and the act also had provisions that took into account the liability of the individuals in the organizations as far as the cleanup of the sites containing hazardous material are concerned. Since the act was created to assist in the cleanup of the hazardous waste, it is also known as a superfund to provide assistance to the cleanup when a specific responsible party could not be found. The act also brought into existence the National Contingency Plan that is responsible for the cleanup of the toxic substances, which are serious, but not immediately life threatening in nature. Apart from this, the CERCLA Act also has provided the federal agencies with powers to prosecute those liable for the unhealthy and unscientific disposal of hazardous waste.
CERCLA has a number of provisions out of which there are two main response items.  The shorter-term emphasis is geared on preventing and removal actions of the release of life threatening substances and material that demand a quick response from the authorities. Note the emphasis on the terms emergency, time critical, and non-time critical classifications that determine the rapidity of the response. This means that this response item is towards a quick reaction to the emerging threats.
The longer-term response is geared towards a more permanent solution to the problems of storing and disposing of hazardous waste and the cleanup of the sites that have toxic substances. As can be seen from the description of this response, it is geared towards a lasting and sustainable solution to the problems of hazardous and toxic material and therefore, this response item envisages building a resilient and durable infrastructure to address the longer-term challenges.
(Barr, 19990, 927)
According to the provisions of the CERCLA, PharmaCARE is liable to take care of the medical needs of its employees since the medical problems that they have encountered is mainly because of the unsafe, unhealthy, and risky working environment. This means that it needs to pay the medial bills of its employees. Further, its treatment of the Corbelians and the environment degrading activities of the company mean that PharmaCARE is not only flouting the laws and regulations but failing in humanitarian terms as well. Before concluding this case analysis, it would be pertinent to point out that PharmaCARE is an example of a company which believes itself to be above the law and which does not bother about humane let alone fulfilling work environments. In conclusion, PharmaCARE represents the extreme end of the spectrum as far as ethics and corporate responsibility are concerned.




References
Barr, L. M. (1990). Cercla made simple: an analysis of the cases under the comprehensive environmental response, compensation, and liability act of 1980. The Business Lawyer, pp. 923--1001.
Clemons, J. (2001). FLSA retaliation: a continuum of employee protection. Baylor L. Rev., 53 p. 535.
Grad, F. P. (1982). Legislative history of the comprehensive environmental response, compensation and liability (superfund) act of 1980, a. Colum. J. Envtl. L., 8 p. 1.
Lipman, F. D. (2012). Whistleblowers. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.
Werther, W. B. & Chandler, D. (2010). Strategic corporate social responsibility. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.