PharmaCARE -- Case Review The Stakeholders

There are numerous stakeholders and stakeholder groups that are presented in this case. The stakeholders can be thought of in two different primary groups to make the first set of distinctions, internal and external groups.

Internal Stakeholders

The management team

The employees

CompCARE and PharmaCARE Investors

External Stakeholders

Colberian Citizens and Workers

The Drugs Patients

Employees, Management, and Investors at Wellco

Society in General

PharmaCARE's Unethical Treatment of the Colberia's

PharmaCARE's received support from the Colberia's in many forms, yet they compensated the Coberia's with nearly nothing and even worse caused ecological damage to their communities. The first way in which the Colberia's supported the PharmaCARE Corporation is through their sharing of intellectual property that had been passed down their ancestral linages for an untold number of years. The "healers" had accumulated generations of ancient tidbits that were undoubtedly accumulated through trial and error over a long course of time. Since the Colberian were primitive peoples, they undoubtedly had no inclination that they were being exploited through the Capitalist system in terms of their intellectual property rights.

Furthermore, the working conditions that the Colberians endured, harvesting plants by walking five (5) miles into and out of the jungle carrying baskets that, when full, weigh up to fifty (50) pounds, were unduly harsh. As primitive peoples in a developing country and a low standard of living, they were undoubtedly ignorant of the possibility of collective bargaining for better wages or working conditions. Thus the Colberians, and their ignorance of modern social systems, was fully exploited by the corporation despite their claims of being a company that considers social and environmental causes. The level of hypocrisy in this case is staggering to say the least.

Allen and the Production Employees

Based on the facts of the case, Allen would have no right to legally fire his workers; that is of course, if all the facts came to light. However, given the previous compromises to his integrity that are mentioned in the case, it is likely that Allen could illegally fire these employees yet not be held accountable for it. For example, if Allen makes up or dramatizes a story about the employees that could constitute the grounds for dismissal, it would put the burden of proof on the employees and it could be very difficult for them to prove that Allen was acting unethically. If Allen was acting ethically, he would address the issues of the mold that was compromises the health of his employees, as well as his own.

Whistleblowing Opportunities, Obligations, and Protections

There is some debate about the line about the obligations of a professional in their organizational role with the obligations of an individual to the public good (Bouville, 2008). There are different ethical systems that can be used to argue the case either way. For example, the professional is usually contractually obliged to maintain a level of confidentiality and loyalty to their organization in their professional careers. Thus from the vantage point of contractual rights, the Allen could argue that he was operating within his contractual rights. However, different ethical systems, such as the utilitarian principle, would come to different conclusions. While it is clear that Allen has the opportunity to disclose a range of unethical organizational behaviors and practices, it is less clear whether not he actually has an obligation to do so. The obligation that Allen had could be argued in an ethical, moral, or legal framework.

Whistleblower is definitely a form of dissent. It can be compared with other forms of dissent such as civil disobedience which is generally thought of as protests against the actions of their governments (Elliston, 1982). If Allen did decide for moral, ethical, or legal considerations that it the right decision to "blow the whistle" on the company's illicit affairs then there are a number of protections that have been designed to help him do so. However, these protections do not always necessarily help individuals and there are still substantial risks to whistleblowing. For example, consider Edward Snowden who leaked a substantial trove of information that illustrated many cases of government overreach and a lack of accountability that persisted in many levels of government. Yet Snowden had to seek refuge in the Soviet Union for the fear he would be tried in court in the U.S. The Government Accountability Project defines a whistleblower, based on U.S. And international law, as follows (Cohen, 2013):

An employee who discloses information that s/he reasonably believes is evidence of illegality, gross waste or fraud, mismanagement, abuse of power, general wrongdoing, or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. Typically, whistleblowers speak out to parties that can influence and rectify the situation. These parties include the media, organizational...

However, at the same time, if he blows the whistle, he will lose his job and possibly the opportunity to find employment in the future. Therefore, blowing the whistle can be an intimidating proposition even with the range of protections that are offered organizational members.
PharmaCARE's Greenwashing

Some green marketing campaigns or the promotion of social responsibilities are perfectly reasonable and easy to believe. One example would be the campaign launched by Vestas, a leading manufacturer of wind turbines, to encourage wind energy development. Others campaigns are far less credible, even to the average consumer. For example, Beyond Petroleum (BP) makes promotional materials that promote their environmentally friendly practices despite the fact that there company is one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the world. Many marketing professionals would consider this to be "greenwashing." Greenwashing has been defined as the "act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service" (Tsai 2010). PharamaCARE is obviously involved in a "greenwashing" campaign since there environmental promotions and their environmental record are definitely inconsistent. In many cases greenwashing can backfire for the companies that cannot back up their environmental statements of responsibilities internally. This will likely ultimately become the case with ParamaCARE as the public will eventually become aware of these discrepancies.

CERCLA

The overview of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) is defined by the EPA as (EPA, N.d.):

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. This law created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and provided broad Federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. Over five years, $1.6 billion was collected and the tax went to a trust fund for cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. CERCLA:

established prohibitions and requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites; provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified.

The law authorizes two kinds of response actions:

Short-term removals, where actions may be taken to address releases or threatened releases requiring prompt response.

Long-term remedial response actions, that permanently and significantly reduce the dangers associated with releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances that are serious, but not immediately life threatening. These actions can be conducted only at sites listed on EPA's National Priorities List (NPL).

CERCLA also enabled the revision of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP provided the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The NCP also established the NPL.

This law could apply to PharmaCARE in many ways since they have caused harm to both the public as well as the environment. The CERCLA program could fine PharmaCARE for the short-term removal of the environmental waste made from their operations as well as long-term remedial fines to care for the Colberian citizens and the workers. It is also interesting to note that since the company bypassed the FDA and caused harm to the public with the release of their drug, that the argument could be made from CERCLA that they somehow polluted individuals through the sale of their drugs. However, in all likelihood PharmaCARE would be sued in a class-action law suit from all of the drug takers as well as from the company that purchased this division. Depending on the terms of the contract and the admission, or lack thereof, of key facts, PharmaCARE may or may not be held accountable for their actions.

Works Cited

Bouville, M. (2008). Whistle-Blowing and Morality. Journal of Business Ethics, 579-585.

Cohen, R. (2013, November 8). Gore Inadvertently Makes Case for Snowden as Whistleblower. Retrieved from Nonprofit Quarterly: http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/policysocial-context/23218-gore-says-snowden-s-revelations-make-him-a-whistleblower.html

Elliston, F. (1982). Civil disobedience and whistleblowing: A comparative appraisal of two forms of dissent. Journal of Business Ethics, 23-28.

EPA. (N.d.). CERCLA Overview. Retrieved from EPA: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/cercla.htm

Tsai, J. (2010, April). Marketing the New Green. Retrieved July 23, 2011, from Customer Relationship Management: http://www.destinationcrm.com/Articles/Editorial