Custom «PharmaCARE Company» Essay Paper Sample

A stakeholder refers to any individual with the power to affect or be affected by a strategy or project of a given organization. They fall into two categories that include external and internal stakeholders, which have various functions that include reserving the power to affect plans, strategies and projects of a given company, directly or indirectly (Visser, 2011). Their contribution directly affects organization’s plans, and this can either take a negative or positive direction. However, projects and strategies in their turn also influence stakeholders. Decisions that they make in terms of organization’s leadership, profits, and new business ventures of the company affect them directly. Stakeholders also reserve the power to make decisions in the organization. Besides, before the company makes any key decision, stakeholders have to be consulted and take part in it. They make all major decisions and formulate policies of the company, which guide the interaction between individuals within the organization, as well as the relations of the latter with other companies. Stakeholders stand as part of the firm, and their impact remains crucial for the success or failure of the organization (Visser, 2011).

PharmaCARE has a range of stakeholders. Operating as a healthcare provider, patients stand as the first recognized shareholders, being the company’s clients that it serves. They have the power or capacity to influence decisions made by the firm, especially in terms of services offered and products manufactured (Visser, 2011). Patients form part of the consumer base of PharmaCARE, and their contributions have significant effects on the operation of the company. In addition, employees at PharmaCARE also stand as key stakeholders, involving doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and physics amongst other medical experts in the firm. This group has the power or ability to influence decisions made at the firm directly. They play advisory roles influencing decisions of the organization’s senior management on crucial matters resulting into the ways of running the firm (Visser, 2011). In addition to employees, local pharmacists to whom the company sales drugs also form part of stakeholders. Located in different parts of the world, they also have a significant task in the management of the company influencing its reputation as a multinational company, reaching out its clientele at the grass roots level (Visser, 2011). However, through the Ministry of Health or rather the health sector, the government is another key stakeholder in this firm. Government decisions and policies on matters of health go a long way in affecting decisions and operations of the organization, which strives to comply with them (Busby & Robson, 2011). The government has health experts who should advise the firm on the policies and regulations that guide the production and distribution of drugs and healthcare services in a given country.

PharmaCARE violated the ethical code of conduct stipulating that any organization should remain fair and just in dealing with its clients. The company took advantage of the poor and illiterate Colberians to exploit them for its selfish gains. Knowing quite well that the Colberians had little knowledge of the intellectual property rights, the company exploited them by using their knowledge of curative herbs to manufacture drugs. The company also treated them unethically by paying very little for the delivery of herbs from which the company manufactured drugs. On the other hand, PharmaCARE paid its executives large sums of money for their intellectual property rights and ideas they sold to the company (Busby & Robson, 2011). It clearly indicates that the firm openly disregarded its moral code by stealing the intellectual property rights of the Colberians.

PharmaCARE can embark on its corporate social responsibility in a bid to improve its ethical reputation. It may include building schools to improve literacy levels like in the case of the Colberians, who lack even formal education. The company can also put up decent shelters to help the homeless and give their lives some decency. Environmentally friendly programs can also be an ideal ethical step, especially in the current period of global warming and increasing cases of environmental pollution (Busby & Robson, 2011). These measures will change the image of the company greatly.

Establishing respective ethical policies will spearhead fairness in relations between the firm and its outside contacts, as well as its employees. These policies will help restore ethical standards in the organization and prevent cases of mistreatment, as it was in the case with the Colberians. Policies should promote and uphold ethical standards that will guide the company to avoid excesses as in the given case (Busby & Robson, 2011). Besides, the management should also focus on how to relate to the external world and minimize conflicts, as well as cases of exploitation.

The third step that the organization can take to promote ethics is correcting the past mistakes, like the exploitation of the Colberians. The firm can educate talented healers among these indigenous people and pay them adequately for their assets and intellectual property rights. Educating the Colberians on the latter will protect them from future exploitation by other interested companies, as it was in the case with PharmaCARE (Busby & Robson, 2011). The firm can also build schools for the affected people to attain the accepted standards of literacy. It will ensure that the locals also benefit from the company’s presence in terms of employment opportunities and general development. This gesture will not only improve the existing relations between the firm and the locals, but also provide a platform for innovations and the integration of the local talented healers into the firm (Busby & Robson, 2011). The move will also increase the consumer base because it is easier to sell ideas to a literate society than to an illiterate one, and an increase in the consumer base will translate to higher sales and profit margins.

PharmaCARE has taken some key steps in environment conservation matters through the official launching of the “We Care About Your World” initiative. The initiative promotes recycling of materials used in the packaging of its products, especially the non-biodegradable ones. The initiative also fronts the idea of changing the packaging material to maintain purely the use of biodegradable materials (Visser, 2011). The initiative further supports other environment conservation measures, such as the green initiatives that support the use of green energy as opposed to fossil fuels that emit carbon substances into the atmosphere leading to global warming. However, this initiative contradicts sharply the firm’s lobbying efforts to defeat environmental conservation rules and regulations, which have proved ineffective over the years. However, letting people take a personal initiative and efforts to conserve the environment will go a long way in achieving the conservation goals unlike what the regulations have achieved in the past (Visser, 2011).

PharmaCARE has the obligation to meet its stakeholders’ expectations, but at the same time, it should perform its social tasks. The utilitarian theory relies on the ability to predict the outcome of an action. PharmaCARE endeavors to produce high-quality drugs expected to help save millions of lives around the world. These products will also improve the quality of life through better healthcare services, but this remains unethical in regard to the Colberians, who have suffered from tough working conditions to meet these expectations (Simpson & Taylor, 2013). On the other hand, the deontological theory emphasizes the fulfillment of one’s moral duty irrespective of whether it brings people happiness or not. In this context, PharmaCARE stands ethical for its endeavors to provide a quality life through the availability of free and discounted drugs to consumers with low incomes. The firm also supports healthcare educational initiatives. However, virtue ethics evaluates whether an act is ethical or unethical. If an action happens accidently, the act will still be considered ethical, but if the doer does a wrong action deliberately, the one will be considered unethical. In the case of the Colberians, PharmaCARE knew well that these people had intellectual property rights. However, the company exploited them, and judging from that, the act was unethical (Busby & Robson, 2011). On the other hand, considering the ethics of care that highlights the mutual benefit of both sides, PharmaCARE acted unethically by exploiting the Colberians, while benefiting alone from the process and the intellectual property rights obtained from the local talented healers. The firm used their knowledge of herbs to manufacture drugs that greatly increased company’s profits. However, such interaction did benefit the locals, who continued to languish in poverty despite the firm’s presence in the area (Busby & Robson, 2011).

I consider PharmaCARE’s actions unethical as they have violated the intellectual property rights of the Colberians contrary to the ethical code of conduct against such. The firm also acted unethically since it exploited the Colberians by paying them little wages that could not help improve their way of life. The local people have hopeless lives, whereas the executives of the firm live lavishly. The firm has failed to provide the Colberians even with the most basic things such as education. All these actions affirm that the company has engaged in unethical activities (Aras, 2009).

A giant Chinese milk manufacturing company that operated in partnership with local milk suppliers suffered huge losses after a consumer had complained of encountering a foreign hazardous material in the firm’s milk product. The government ordered the company to withdraw all its milk products from the market in light of the consumer’s complaint (Stabile & Grignon, 2010). As a result, the firm faced tremendous financial losses, as it still had to pay its milk suppliers as per the contract of partnership. The similarities between this company and the PharmaCARE case are that both have incurred huge monetary losses because of violating ethical regulations. Secondly, both companies lost their good public image because of the ethical lapse. The main differences are that the Chinese milk firm met the terms of engagement with its partners, unlike PharmaCARE. Secondly, the Chinese company stopped production to address the problem, whereas the latter continued with production despite the issue (Stabile & Grignon, 2010).

In conclusion, even though PharmaCARE continues to offer high-quality medical products to millions worldwide, the firm ought to abide by the ethical regulations that guide the operations of such organizations. PharmaCARE should also review its position in regard with the environmental conservation measures since its negative publicity. Conservation regulations aim at establishing a uniform platform in addressing environmental matters, and contradicting and lobbying against the regulations only helps to acquire tainted reputation. The firm ought to conform when it comes to conservation efforts as it stands as a global challenge.