Group Members: Robson Araujo Jr., Samantha Powers, Jordyn Pykon

Part 1

Step 1: Facts of the Situation

• In this region of East Africa, the growth of 35% of children is stunted due to poor nutrition
• HIV/AIDS have a high prevalence in this region
• Maize and bananas are made into a gruel to be fed to infants beginning at 2 months of age
• The gruel is used to compliment breastfeeding until 24 months of age
• Mothers in the area believe the gruel is beneficial
• Research has shown that the gruel is missing some key nutrients
• The longer that a child breastfeeds, the more likely they will contract HIV/AIDS from mothers who carry it
• WHO recommends exclusive breastfeeding until 6 months of age
• You have been given a grant in order to establish a women’s cooperative in the region
• The donor wants to improve the nutritional health of children as well as the livelihoods of rural households
• The grant will provide funds for a nutritious and shelf-stable porridge made from local produce
• 500 women from three contiguous regions have indicating interest in joining the cooperative
• The women are skeptical of the porridge
• Crops grown in the area include maize, sorghum, cassava, several varieties of legumes (dried beans),
  French beans, coffee, pineapple, bananas, pumpkins, tomatoes, carrots, kale, white (Irish) potatoes,
  and sweet potatoes
• Pesticides are used to grow some of these crops
• Pesticides have potentially negative effects on child health
• The ethical issue at hand involves finding a solution that satisfies mothers, keeps children healthy, and aligns with the plans of the donor. It is very difficult to find a solution that perfectly benefits everyone so we must find the least worst option.

Step 2/3: Stakeholders and Motivations

• Women
  • Want their children to be safe and healthy. This makes them skeptical of the new porridge, as it is not proven to be healthy
  • Want to improve their own livelihoods. Doing this deals with many issues including: improving the HIV/AIDS crisis, providing for families, ensuring safe living conditions, avoiding exploitation by outside parties, etc.
  • Want to reduce the risk of HIV/AIDS spreading between each other and to children
  • Want to potentially make a profit through use of the cooperative
• Children
  • Basic needs of safety and food
    • Most likely want food to taste good
• The Donor
  • Wants to improve the nutritional status of children and improve the livelihoods of rural households in the region
  • Want to make a nutritious, shelf-stable porridge made from locally grown produce available for children at 6 months of age to wean them off of breast milk
  • May want to build a reputation as a philanthropist and gain respect with peers
  • May have connections to people around the area that they want to improve
• You (Entrepreneur/Researcher)
  • To provide the children with nutrients without risking them contracting AIDS/HIV 
  • Improve the livelihoods of children and their families
  • Make the most out of the grant and make the cooperative successful
  • Build credibility and improve reputation in career field
• Pesticide Companies
  • Want to make a profit off of pesticide products
  • Want use of pesticides in the region to continue unhindered
• Farmers
  • Want to sell crops that they grow to make a profit
  • Most likely are also concerned about the HIV/AIDS situation in the region and want to improve it
  • Want as little as change in production methods as possible

Step 4: Alternative solutions

Solution 1: Use funds to address healthcare for HIV/AIDS in the region through testing and education

• Ethical Code
  • Beneficence: This benefits the mothers and children by helping them combat the effects that HIV/AIDS has in the region
  • Non-maleficence: This minimizes potential harm that results from the project, either from pesticides or untested food
  • Autonomy: This violates autonomy because it violates the donor’s intentions for the grant
• Pros
  • Improves the livelihoods of mothers and children without risks of pesticides
  • Allows more women to breastfeed due to reduced risk and increased knowledge
  • Positive effects on the future of the region through improved knowledge
• Cons
  • Does not address the issues with nutrition
  • Deviates from donor’s plan and puts grant money at risk
  • Costly and time consuming to implement
  • Trouble distributing tests and getting women to go to education sessions
• Overall this solution has many cons that outweigh the positives. Although it addresses one of the issues that we set out to deal with, it completely ignores the other. This solution also violated the donor’s trust and may lead to them pulling their support from the project, stopping the entire process in its tracks.

Solution 2: Identify the nutrients lacking from the gruel and encourage farmers to grow more of them to add to the current gruel

• Ethical Code
  • Beneficence: Provides nutrients to mothers and children, bringing them benefit
  • Non-Maleficence: Potentially violates this as the the issue of pesticides in food is not addressed
• Pros
  • Requires little adjustment from mothers since they already trust the gruel
  • Increases diversity of food in the region
  • Satisfies goals of the donor due to improved nutrition and livelihoods
  • Does not dissatisfy any stakeholders
• Cons
  • Does not reduce the risk of pesticides in local crops
  • Time consuming and potentially costly to identify nutrients that are lacking
  • Farmers may not agree to changing methods
  • Donor may be upset that gruel is used instead of porridge
• Overall this solution achieves the goals that the donor sets out for. It improves nutrition in households while also slightly improving livelihoods due reduced risks of HIV/AIDS. However, the continued presence of pesticides in the crops means that the children are still at risk to harm. This solution also has very little impact on the livelihoods of rural households outside that of issues involving HIV/AIDS.

Solution 3: Use alternative methods to protect crops in order to remove risks of pesticides in porridge

• Ethical Code
  • Non-maleficence: This mainly satisfies this principle by removing the dangers associated with the porridge due to the pesticides used to grow local crops
  • Beneficence: Provides benefit to mothers and children because they are eating the porridge
• Pros
  • Reduces the health risks of the food
  • Reduces criticism from mothers due to effort at reducing toxins in porridge
  • Improves livelihoods of rural households due to healthier food options
  • Has potential benefits for farming in the region due to healthier crops
  • Porridge is used to feed children and reduce risk of HIV/AIDS
• Cons
  • Increased time and potentially increased cost from developing alternative methods
  • Farmers may not agree to change farming methods
  • Donor may see this method as too time consuming
  • Pesticide companies will try to oppose plans

Step 6: Best Course of Action

The best course of action will be to introduce alternate methods to protect crops in the local area and reduce the risks of pesticides. This solution accomplishes the two main goals of the donors. It improves the nutrition of children by allowing the distribution of a risk-free porridge that can accompany breast feeding. It also opens up opportunities for improving the livelihoods of local rural households through the introduction of more healthy and sustainable farming practices that use less pesticides. Although this solution will require more time to implement, it continues to line up with the donor’s passion for the project, ensuring their support. Although farmers may oppose using methods besides pesticides at first, framing the changes as potentially increasing profit will convince them. Pesticide companies will oppose the plan, but if it is successful, pesticide companies will not be required in the region or for the project. The women will be more likely to trust the porridge due to the lack of pesticides and will be happy that it is available to their children. The porridge will also be better tasting than the gruel, ensuring that the children eat it. This solution is much riskier than the other two, however, it is still realistic and has much more potential benefits, for both the short term and long term.

Step 7: Implications of the Solution

This solution has many implications for farmers in the region. By encouraging the use of methods like crop rotation and trap plants in farming, the overall products will be much healthier and safer for consumption compared to crops grown with pesticides. This not only effects the children eating the porridge that results from it, but all consumers in the region. The reduced presence of pesticide companies in the region means that people will have more autonomy in their local markets. Reducing risks of HIV/AIDS in children will have positive social consequences and encourage more healthy interaction between neighbors. The establishment of the women’s cooperative will grant more power to women in the region and provide more community and social engagement outside whatever local government exists. Less food concerns will allow providers and important figures in the region to focus more heavily on actually addressing the HIV/AIDS solutions. The potential for many long-term and future opportunities sets this solution apart from others.

Part II

Step 1: Facts of the Situation

• Six months after the launch of the cooperative, the efforts of the women are paying off and business is thriving
• Women work for 9 hours every day and earn about three dollars
• Besides their salary they can sell the produce grown on their small farms to the cooperative (rates are standard – helps them make money on the side)
• The women like this work model because it saves them a trip (time + money) to the village market to sell their products
• The women enjoy working together and they are happy.
• When a woman brings her hard- earned money home, she has no choice but to turn it over to her husband, father, or brothers. Rather than using the money to support their families, the men waste it on alcohol and frivolous things.
• Though you are loved and respected by the entire community, you do not have a direct say in the cooperative’s functioning.
• You are one of the seven members of the leadership committee that oversees all operations. The committee is elected on an annual basis and you have six months left on the committee, after which you will practically leave the cooperative completely.
• The other women on the committee are convinced that nothing can be done about it because that’s just the way it works in their community.

Step 2/3: Stakeholders and Motivations

• Women
  • Want their children to be safe and healthy. This makes them skeptical of the new porridge, as it is not proven to be healthy
  • Want to improve their own livelihoods. Doing this deals with many issues including: improving the HIV/AIDS crisis, providing for families, ensuring safe living conditions, avoiding exploitation by outside parties, etc.
  • Want to reduce the risk of HIV/AIDS spreading between each other and to children
  • Want the success of the cooperative to continue
  • Want to use earnings to support family and ensure health of children
  • Do not want to anger male authority figures
• The Donor
  • Wants to improve the nutritional status of children and improve the livelihoods of rural households in the region
  • Wants the cooperative to continue to succeed and return on investment
  • May want to build a reputation as a philanthropist and gain respect with peers
  • May have connections to people around the area that they want to improve
• You (Entrepreneur/Researcher)
  • To provide the children with nutrients without risking them contracting AIDS/HIV 
  • Improve the livelihoods of children and their families
  • Make the most out of the grant and make the cooperative successful
  • Build credibility and improve reputation in career field
  • Maintain reputation within community
  • Improve livelihoods within the community, especially those of women
• Men in the region
  • Want things to stay as they are
  • Want to enjoy life and blow off steam using money
  • Want family to be safe and presumably want them to be healthy
  • Want to make money
• Six members of leadership council
  • Want change to occur
  • Want money to be used to feed children
  • Understand the problems at hand but do not think they can change them
  • Want cooperative to be successful
  • Do not mind men taking money but want it to be used to feed children

Step 4/5/6: Optimal Solution

The optimal solution would be to arrange a meeting between the seven leaders of the cooperative and male authority figures in the region to hire men to perform tasks for the cooperative. Part of doing this would be transitioning the women’s salaries to food and other supplies while men can still make money. This solution saves face for everyone involved because the women are payed in a way that provides for their family while not going against their husbands/fathers/etc. The men save face because they are still payed by the cooperative while earning their keep. The cooperative saves face because it does not go against male authority figures in the region but also accomplishes goals. The donor saves face because the cooperative continues to be successful with little conflict. You save face because you’re seen as bringing opportunities to the region while still helping the women feed their children.

This solution improves livelihoods in rural areas because it encourages cooperation between men and women to achieve the goals of the cooperative. It also provides a somewhat steady income to men (that they will hopefully not always waste). It continues to improve nutrition, as the cooperative now has additional workers to ensure its success.

• Pros
  • Women are able to provide for children with food they are payed with
  • Men do not question cooperative and earn money that may help support family
  • Fosters cooperation between genders in the region
• Cons
  • Does not bring about any direct change
  • Women no longer earning direct money
  • Requires cooperation of both genders
• Short-Term Implications
  • Cooperative gains new workers that can be put to use
  • Compromises will be made between male leaders and cooperative leaders
  • Women may be upset about change in pay but happy that children still are provided for
  • Men are happy to get payed
• Long-Term Implications
  • Gender relationships improve as men and women work together
  • Cooperative more sustainable due to labor provided by men
  • You leave without any controversies
  • Donor is happy and more likely to continue to invest in cooperative or you in the future

Step 7: Implementation

1. Arrange meeting with male authority figures in the region
2. Propose hiring men as part of the cooperative
3. Call meeting of cooperative to propose changing salary to food and supplies
4. Once both meetings have been held, encourage women to invite male figures to work for cooperative
5. Develop distribution centers to distribute food and supplies as salaries
6. Monitor progress and hold another meeting with cooperative leaders and male authority figures
7. Address any issues and adjust accordingly
8. Hold meetings every month to address issues