Characteristics of Stakeholders Research Essay

The pharmaceutical firm PharmaCARE, its managers who oversee the Colberia facility, and the residents of Colberia themselves are the main actors in this case. The company demonstrates a great deal of knowledge and concern for people’s lives by helping the poor access Medicare and funding educational initiatives about the value of environmental protection when carrying out its business. It is the main justification behind the “We Care about Your World” strategy, which places a strong emphasis on green initiatives.

The people in the new workplace are morally valuable objects, but justice is not served to them. Despite that the citizens of Colberia are cooperative and honest in sharing information about indigenous cares, the executives, who are the primary agents of PharmaCARE in Colberia do little to live the employer’s dream of caring about the less-privileged communities. First, their decision to make the residents of Colberia work at a significantly low pay is an indicator of lack of a drive to improve their lives. Nonetheless, by subjecting the Colberia citizens to harsh working conditions such as walking long distances in search of herbs and carrying heavy baskets is equivalent to slavery.

Lastly, the environment is part of the moral community, hence deserves to be protected. By encouraging the members to destroy their environment without informing them about the imminent dangers of the behavior and failing to take measures to replenish the disappearing flora and fauna in Colberia, the agents of PharmaCARE reveal an attitude of reduced concern for the future lives of the residents of Colbera. Apparently, the environmental initiative of “We Care About your world” does not match with the actions that are taking place in real life in the Colberia facility.

Human Rights Issues Presented in the Case of PharmaCARE

Based on Article six of the International Human Rights Conventions, every individual, regardless of place, must be recognized as a person. On the other hand, Article 23 of the same convention asserts that all persons must be given a right to favorable working conditions, nondiscrimination and equal pay for equal work done, favorable and just remuneration to live a dignified life (Smith & Smith,2016). However, PharmaCARE officials in Colberia are not concerned about creating such conditions. The labor supplied at one per day dollar benefits the manufacturer rather than the labor. Walking for long distance translates to harsh labor conditions hence violating the provisions of Article 23 of the convention. Apparently, the sustenance of prosperity of PharmaCARE comes at the expense of the lives of the residents. Environmental rights are part of the modern human rights because making the air breathable and water drinkable enhances general community health. Protection of the environments avails fresh drinking water that facilitates agricultural activities that fosters food security in all countries. Therefore, protection of the environment is a precursor to other liberties such as the right to life, because of ensuring little environmental harm. As a matter of fact, destroying the environment to satisfy material desires can translate to environmental crises and food security issues in Colberia.

Recommendations. As it can be established, the citizens that are acting in good faith while the executives are taking advantage of their poverty to exploit them. To conduct themselves in accordance with the objectives of their employer, the executives of the Colberian facility must take measures of improving the health and well-being of less fortunate communities. The executives should consider increasing the wages of the residents as means of pulling them out of their deteriorated economic condition. Helping them to construct facilities such as golf courses, water points, and modern housing can improve the lifestyles of the Colberians as well. More so, the company can improve the means of transport for the citizens to enable them collect the herbs and bring them to the company more easily. What is more, educating them about the essence of protecting their environment can save the Colberians from the imminent environmental issues in the future. The executives can also implement initiatives seeking to prevent further deterioration of the Colberian environment.

Morality of PahrmaCARE Conduct in Colberia

The normative moral approach of utilitarianism suggests that the goodness of an action is dependent on its consequence that brings on the largest number of persons. Actions that are morally right lead to good results and increase pleasure and vice versa. Ideally, happiness or. A utilitarian perceives that positive contribution or usefulness to the lives of the greatest number of people is what makes an action morally right. A utilitarian goes beyond personal interests and focuses on the interests of others (Graham, 2004). Based on utilitarian ethics, the conduct of PharmaCARE’s executives in Colberia is morally wrong. Moral accountability for their actions as well as the potential impact of their actions to the residents of Colberia is nonexistent. Their intentions mirror memorization of the employer’s life improvement facts and environmental friendliness concepts only but little effort to put the concepts into practice to people that need it most. As a matter of fact, when the company’s executives permit the incessant destruction of the environment, they create a scenario where a company that benefits few individuals exposes the entire community to environmental issues in the future. Therefore, the unethical aspect emerges from the fact that lives of many people are sacrificed with actions that benefit few individuals.

Graham(2004) also argues that deontological ethics suggests that goodness or badness of actions cannot be justified on the basis of their consequences but violation and respect of duty. Under deontology, justification of the morality of a person’s action or choice is dependent on the state of affairs that the choices create. Regardless of the morality of the consequences, an immoral action remains immoral for a deontologist. Moral agents have a role of obeying the rules defined in their roles. There is no consideration of alternatives but the action itself. The conduct of PharmaCARE is also morally wrong on the basis of deontological ethics. The executives have a duty of improving the lifestyles of the Colberia residents but they opt to escape their duty deliberately. They know that they are supposed to protect the environment but they resort to allow the villagers destroy the vegetation with no incentive of recovering it. They also continue paying the residents of Colberia little money yet they understand that such action propagates their poverty. Therefore, the executives violate their duty of caretaking and improving lives.

Virtue ethics recognizes personal character and values as the main elements of morality rather than acting in accordance with one’s obligation or expected consequences. Virtue ethics pose that a moral agent must act in a manner that he or she would expect the recipient to act he is in the position of the recipient and the recipient is in his or her position. Virtuous actions are unique. A virtuous moral agent expresses generally accepted codes of conduct such as generosity, goodwill, kindness and humility in all circumstances that they find themselves (Graham, 2004). The executives of PharmaCARe are not virtuous in Colberia. First, failure to address amenity issues in Colberia indicates a lack of goodwill. More so, the decision to live in affluence while the residents of Colberia are suffering depicts selfishness.

Ethics of care argues that agents must strive to maintain relationships by promoting wellbeing in social relations network. The care entails enhancing sustainability; meeting needs of self and others especially those that are dependent and vulnerable. The executives of Chevron can indicate care is they can give the residents an opportunity to enjoy the necessities that are lacking such as electricity, good housing, and tap water. However, they resort to live affluent lifestyles while the community continues to suffer. Nevertheless, they are expected to be concerned about the future of Colberia residents after the deterioration of their environment but they cast a blind eye to the imminent issue.

Comparison of PharmaCARE with Chevron

Chevron formerly referred to as Texaco was accused of spreading pollution with industrial wastes in the Amazonian side of Ecuador between 1972 to 1992.The indigenous communities such as those of Lago Agrio accused the company of destroying rainforests, adding toxic wastes to the soil and water which made them vulnerable to illness and other health conditions such as cancer (Romero & Krauss, 2011). Estimators assert that approximately 18 billion gallons of wastewater and millions of gallons of crude oil were dumped by the company. Various researches indicate that approximately 30,000 individuals were affected by the pollution. After the first complaint that was launched in 1993, the company was forced to embark on a cleanup process worth 40 million dollars. However, there were further complaints that the cleanup process was not sufficient. A case filled by the residents in 2003 saw the company pay damages amounting to 28 billion dollars. Subsequently, the transfer of the case from New York to Ecuador in 2003, saw the company get a further fine of 8.6 billion USD, a figure that could rise to approximately 19 billion dollars.

Similarities. Both PhamaCARE and Chevron invested in developing countries. The two companies also engaged in environmental pollution deliberately. The pollution led to a loss of habitat. The conduct of the two companies led to long-term detrimental effects to the communities in which they conducted their business.

Differences. While Chevron was sued by the communities, there is no indication that PharmaCARE faced a legal suit.The environmental impact of Chevron of Chevron was also higher than that of PharmaCARE. For instance, while PharmaCARE has led to destruction of plant and animal species only, Chevron’s activities led to destruction of the two species and increased the residents’ vulnerability to ailments and conditions such as Cancer. More so, there is no information indicating that Chevron exploited the residents of Ecuador on the basis of pay and working conditions similar to PharmaCARE.

Conclusion

The agents of PharmaCARE in Colberia comprehend the abstract moral principles but depict little effort to apply the knowledge in day-to-day decision making. The executives understand that the resident need to access to facilities such as reasonable housing and safe water but they do not take any action to reverse the situation. For example, they have resorted to living in a world of abundance where there is scarcity and take no measures to improve the environment that is supportive to their employer. Working at one dollar for a day-long job indicates that it is hard for the Colberians to grow economically. On the other hand, destroying their environment uncontrollably indicates that they will face issues associated with environmental protection such as reduced water access as a result of desertification. The conduct of the executives is therefore immoral on the basis of utilitarianism, virtue ethics, deontology and ethics of care.

References

Graham, G. (2004). Eight theories of ethics. Psychology Press.

Romero, S., & Krauss, C. (2011). Ecuador judge orders Chevron to pay $9 billion. New York Times.

Smith, R., & Smith, R. K. (2016). Textbook on international human rights. Oxford University Press.