Group: Susan Cheng, David Tauman, Alicia Zamudio
PART 1:
Step 1: Determine the facts in the situation – obtain all of the unbiased facts possible. Clearly state the ethical issue.
- In east Africa ~35% of children are stunted
- Gruel is used to complement breastfeeding, believed to be nutritious but in reality it is not helpful to growth
- HIV is prevalent amongst mothers in the region
- A breastfeeding mother that is HIV+ has a high chance of transferring it to her child
- World Health Organization recommends exclusive breastfeeding until an infant is six months
- The gruel is integrated into a child’s diet to complement breastfeeding from 2 months ~24 months of age
- The funding for the cooperative comes from a grant given by a donor.
- The goal is to process and market a nutritious, shelf-stable porridge made from a large mix of locally grown produce
- 500 women from three contiguous sub-locations have indicated their interest in joining the cooperative
- Crops that are locally grown 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.
- Mothers are skeptical of the porridge and its use as an early weaning food
- Pesticides are typically used in growing some of the crops that are locally grown and can result in adverse health implications for infants
- We received a grant for this project
- Assumptions
- Mothers are not knowledge about HIV, its effect, and its transmission
- Mothers do not know the effects of ingesting pesticides
- Ethical Issue: Mothers currently breastfeed and provide gruel to their children up to the age of 2, believing that it is beneficial to their health and growth. Contradicting the mother’s belief, the high prevalence of HIV in the community carries the risk of mothers transmitting HIV to their children via breastfeeding. In addition, the gruel does not provide key nutrients to their children’s growth. Our porridge solution would enable women to provide their children with the key nutrients to their growth. However, the ingredients to our porridge may contain pesticide residues.
Step 2 and 3: Define the Stakeholders and their Motivations – those with a vested interest in the outcome
- The mothers→ The approximately 500 women from the three contiguous sub-locations (primary)
- Want children to grow up healthy
- Improve their own livelihood
- Have a tasteful nutritious porridge that their kids will want to eat
- Make money
- The children (primary)
- Have access to food
- Want to grow healthy (no stunting and no HIV)
- Consume food that are tasty
- Your cooperative→ the researchers
- Wants to implement the new supplementals to aid in child growth
- Wants to prevent stunting and HIV in the youth
- Wants to educate the mothers about HIV, nutrition, and pesticides
- Create a porridge that kids will want to eat and mothers will want to feed their kids
- To process and market a nutritious, shelf-stable porridge made from a large mix of locally grown produce
- Wants to create a successful business
- Build their own credibility
- The donors (secondary)
- Improve the nutrition amongst children in the area
- Improve the livelihoods of rural households
- The governments/leaders in east Africa (secondary)
- Want to limit the stunting in the children
- Want to limit the HIV cases
- Want to improve the livelihood of the community
Step 4: Formulate (at least three) alternative solutions – based on information available, using basic ethical core values as guide
-
- Solution #1: Educate mothers about HIV and transmission, nutrition, and urge them to try the porridge (do not warn about pesticides)
-
- Hold meetings to discuss what HIV is, the effects and dangers of HIV, and how it is transferred through breastfeeding
- Urge the mothers to try implementing our porridge for their children as it can prevent the risk of HIV transmission through breastfeeding
- The porridge is also more nutritional than the current gruel the children are fed
- Ethical Principle: We are providing the mothers with information concerning the health and nutrition of their children’s growth in their current practice. We then present a solution that may alleviate the malnutrition and potential health risks involved in their current lifestyle. However, the solution presented also carries health risks but we have decided in the mother’s stead that the solution will do them more good than their current practice.
-
-
- Pros:
- Avoid the fears that may arise amongst mothers regarding pesticides
- Addressing why breastfeeding needs to be avoided (HIV issue)
- Explaining how the porridge is more beneficial than the traditional gruel
-
-
-
- It could be considered an ethical dilemma where we violate informed consent if we don’t inform the women of the possible pesticides.
- Mothers may decide that they don’t want to learn more and want to continue using their traditional gruel.
- Mothers can be distrustful of us
- Educating the mothers could be costly
- Solution #2: Educate mothers about HIV, transmission, nutrition, and pesticide dangers (their decision about trying the porridge)
- Ethical Principle: We educate the mothers about the dangers of HIV and pesticides and give them the power to decide whether or not they want to try the porridge. The fate of her children is in her own hands.
- Pros:
- The mothers are fully educated regarding all consequences and can make a decision for themselves.
- No matter their choice, they will be doing what feels right for their children
- Developing a relationship of trust because we are mentioning a possible drawback although it could negatively affect our venture.
- Cons:
- Could lead to unnecessary fear amongst the mothers when it comes to pesticides
- when in reality, the children may have already been consuming pesticides through the traditional gruel
- Some mothers may choose not to try our porridge –> Hurting our venture
- Some mothers may take offense of they aren’t aware of the issue and hear them from outsiders. They may think we are judging them or that we think we are superior to them.
- Our actions could be taken as a savior complex and some mothers might feel threatened by it.
- Educating the mothers could be costly
-
- Solution #3: We partner up with local farmers to have them grow produce without pesticides.
-
-
- Ethical Principles: We work with the local community to eliminate the health risk associated with our solution so that we are not potentially harming mothers and their children as we try to help them.
- Pros:
- More trust amongst the mothers since the elimination of pesticides will be prioritized
-
-
-
- Getting rid of the unknown factor that comes along with the use of pesticides
- No further research will be needed if we do not use pesticides (regarding the risks that comes with the consumption of pesticides)
-
-
-
- Could lead to financial burdens
- Khanjan brought up how it is hard to run a farm that is both efficient in producing a lot of food and not using pesticides
- Some locals might not want to work with us
- We don’t know the working ethics of the locals. There could be hiccups that delay our progress
Step 5: Seek additional assistance, as appropriate – engineering codes of ethics, previous cases, peers, reliance on personal experience, inner reflection
- Pesticide alternatives
- Biocontrol: targeting predators by implementing their natural enemies nearby the farms to limit the populace
- Polyculture: plant crops that naturally repel specific species
- Personal experience/ inner reflection
- As the venture owner, you want to respect how the mothers should be completely aware. However, the possibility of pesticides far outweigh the dangers of HIV and malnutrition. They may not see it like that. Hearing about pesticides may driver possible consumers away before we even are able to completely explain ourselves. For instance, I even see this in the United States
- Anti-vaxxers refuse to hear out how the pros weigh out the cons that come with vaccines. Once it sounds foreign to them and they get drowned with scientific information, they check out and ignore the argument to support vaccines.
- When explaining to the mothers, we need to say it in an impactful way and through trustworthy people to avoid the same thing to occur that happens with many American people unfortunately
- Disconnection to scientists, researchers
- In my Environmental Science class, it was discussed how there are a lot of terms that are misunderstood by the general public.
- For example, uncertainty in the scientific field is not viewed as a negative trait, etc
- Scientists–> uncertainty is viewed as just room for more data collection (on top of what is already present) whereas the general public tends to have a negative connotation around the term
- Need to ensure that we use concrete explanations that cannot be misinterpreted.
- https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides
- “However, the low levels of pesticides found in foods are unlikely to cause harm”
- https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/pesticides-and-health#:~:text=million%20(%2016%20).-,Summary%3A,are%20unlikely%20to%20cause%20harm.
Step 6: Select the best course of action – that which satisfies the highest core ethical values. Explain reasoning and justify. Discuss your stance vis-a-vis other approaches discussed in the class.
I believe the best course of action is to educate the mothers on every aspect: pesticide dangers, HIV transmission, and nutrition. As much as the mention of pesticide dangers may some possible consumers away, I feel as if it is the best ethical decision. Like previously described, the cooperative needs to make sure the workshops educating the mothers are well thought out and planned in a way that does not drown them in information. I would want the workshops to emphasize how the pros of the porridge outweigh the possible cons (if any). There has been plenty of risk assessments of pesticides in food and there is not an extreme concern associated with low levels of pesticides. In addition, by making the mothers aware of the pesticides could work as an advantage for our venture because it develops a relationship of honesty and genuine respect. In addition, this approach may really cause some conversation within the community leading to more possible consumers of the venture.
One of the other solutions was to host workshops of why our porridge is better but to not mention the pesticides. At first, I thought that was the right thing to do because we know that the concerns of pesticides are very little compared to stunted growth and HIV transmission. However, although I am not a mother I still understand I would want my children to be completely safe and I would want to be aware of what is going on. It their child and we need to respect their choices. As the outsiders, we need to make sure we show respect to cultural values and mother instincts. During the workshops, if we show that we care and are willing to answer any questions or concerns that will go a much longer way than just hiding flaws. Our venture is not perfect but it is relieving the current issues that the mothers and children are encountering to a certain extent.
As outsiders, we need to understand our place and not try to dominate the situation.
Step 7: (If applicable) What are the implications of your solution on the venture. Explain the impact of your proposed solution on the venture’s technology, economic, social and environmental aspects.
The solution I chose is the most ethical approach because of how it validates the mothers’ possible concerns. The mothers have every right to be scared and hesitant to our venture. We are outsiders and have different cultural norms. The gruel may be culturally embedded in their community, so it may take time for them to switch. We need to make sure we show them that we understand their fears. If we just dismiss their concern, it will have no benefit for the venture.
Yes, there could be possible health risks that come with pesticides but showing them how it could relieve their children of two issues: HIV transmission and malnutrition could make them reconsider. We are making two huge issues become one slight concern: pesticide effects. The venture may need to invest some money in workshops, but it could benefit the venture in the long term. Putting money into educating the east African communities could lead to more potential consumers, so it should be viewed more as an investment.
PART 2:
Step 1: Determine the facts in the situation – obtain all of the unbiased facts possible
- The business is thriving and the women are hired to work 9 hours everyday for a wage of KES 300 ($3)
- The women have a chance in selling the produce grown on their small farm to the cooperative to earn extra income
- The hard-earned money that women bring home is turned over to the husband, father, or brothers.
- The husband, father, and brothers spend the hard-earned money on alcohol and frivolous items that does not enhance the well-being of the family
- The cooperative is thriving but is not achieving their two social outcomes of improving the nutritional status of children and the livelihoods of rural households
- You do not have direct say in the cooperative’s functioning and you have six months left on the committee
- The other six members of the committee are local women that understand the problem and desire change
- The women are not opposed to the men taking their money but are more concerned with the issue of their hard-earned money not being used to feed their children
- Assume:
- Not all 500 women will be working at the cooperative
Step 2 & 3: Define the problem and the stakeholders – those with a vested interest in the outcome. Determine and distinguish between the personal and professional motivations of the stakeholders.
- The women working (primary)
- Personal:
- Want children to grow up healthy
- Improve their own livelihood
- Have a tasteful nutritious porridge that their kids will want to eat
- provide for their family
- Professional:
- Keep their job that provides a sense of independence and identity
- A respectful distance between their work and home life
- The children (secondary)
- Personal:
- Have access to food
- Want to grow healthy (no stunting and no HIV)
- Consume food that are tasty
- Professional: N/A
- Your cooperative→ the researchers (primary)
- Personal:
- Create a porridge that kids will want to eat and mothers will want to feed their kids
- Wants to implement the new supplementals to aid in child growth
- Wants to prevent stunting and HIV in the youth
- Professional:
- Wants to create a successful business
- Build their own credibility
- To process and market a nutritious, shelf-stable porridge made from a large mix of locally grown produce
- The donors (secondary)
- Personal:
- Improve the nutrition amongst children in the area
- Improve the livelihoods of rural households
- Professional:
- Reputation of helping the less fortunate financially
- The governments/leaders in east africa (secondary)
- Both personal and professional:
- Want to limit the stunting in the children
- Want to limit the HIV cases
- Want to improve the livelihood of the community
- The men (primary)
- Personal:
- Want to use the money in the household as they please (alcohol, etc.)
- Collect money that wife earns from work
- Professional:
- As the male, dominate the household operation and the sources of income (cultural norm)
- You, the entrepreneur:
- Personal:
- Want to make sure the money is going to the goals of the organization, which aligns with the goals of the mother
- Want to maintain a positive relationship between other committee members with the remaining 6 months
- Want to help mothers shift money from alcohol to food on the table for their children, particularly other members of the committee
- Professional:
- Want to maintain a peaceful relationship between the mothers and their husbands
- Want to improve the nutritional status of the children and the livelihood of the households in a non-invasive manner
Step 4: One optimal solution- based on information available, to have a win-win situation for your relationship and your venture.
- Solution: The women would continue to earn their salary and get a pay every 3 days. Rather than paying out the full amount of KES 900 at the end of the 3rd day, the women would receive KES 450 in cash and the remaining monetary value will be supplemented with a package consisting of food and a little bit of alcohol.
-
-
- How does it solve the problem?
- This solution guarantees the women a portion of their salary going towards feeding their children (their primary concern).
- Women would still be bringing money home so that they would not be penalized by the men in the house.
- The addition of the alcohol as part of the package serves as a compromise to not only the wife but also to the men in the household.
-
-
-
- The women can maintain a portion of their salary towards food expenses for the nutritional well being of the children, which addresses their primary concern.
- The men would still be receiving some of the women’s income.
- Both the women and the men in the household gain from the package (alcohol and food).
-
-
-
- Some of the men might be angered by this system because they are not receiving as much money as they used to.
- The packaging only addresses the nutritional status of the children and does not provide a solution to other aspects that will lead to improving the livelihoods of the households.
- There is minimal change occurring in the system to improve the livelihood of the community. Money is still primarily invested in the alcohol and other frivolous items that does not benefit the household nor the community.
- How does it save face of those involved?
- Mother: They are able to fulfill their duty of improving the nutritional status of their children.
- Children: The children are more well fed and no longer at risk or experiencing malnutrition
- Cooperative: The cooperative appears to be achieving at least one of their promised social outcome of “improving the nutritional status of children”
- Donors: Donors seem like they are improving the situation in regards to children malnutrition through their financial contribution rather than allocating their funds that will end up buying alcohol for men.
- Government/Leaders of East Africa: The government receives some sort of recognition in the improvement of children nutrition globally.
- You, the entrepreneur: You feel proud to solve the primary concern of mothers by ensuring that there is enough food on the table for children with the package.
- Implications on relationships:
- Short term:
- The mother’s anger towards the men wasting money will die down for a brief moment.
- Men may be slightly upset at the cooperative for the decrease in their alcohol allowance
- The cooperative will gain a positive reputation amongst the women and the government for their contribution on improving the nutritional status of the children
- Long term:
- The mothers will be pleased to see the improvement in the nutritional status of the children, however their anger towards the men will return because their hard earned money is still being wasted on alcohol and other items that do not improve the livelihood of the household
- The cooperative gain a positive momentum for a short period of time for meeting one of their goal (improving the nutritional status of children), however they will still need to address the livelihood aspects of the community in order to maintain their relationship with the community members, the donors, and the government
- Implications on venture
- Short term:
- The cooperative will achieve one of their goal (improving the nutritional status of children), however they will still need to address the livelihood aspects of the community.
- Long term:
- The cooperative will gain support from the community for addressing the malnutrition issue in the community, which boosts their business.
Step 5: Seek additional assistance, as appropriate – previous cases, peers, reliance on personal experience, inner reflection
This situation is a little more harder to approach since it is solely based on cultural differences. I am not used to the men dominating the women’s paycheck. However, I need to respect the cultural difference but also ensure we are not feeding any other problems through our venture. Our ultimate goal is to ensure the health of the children. Men abusing the money women are earning for alcohol is interfering with the children and their livelihood. Therefore, it is our place to an extent to jump in.
We will need additional assistance. We should set up discussions with the different groups of people in the community including: the mothers, the husbands, community leaders, and other organizations that deal with similar problems. For instance, the African Women’s Development and Communications Network (FEMNET) and AFRICA FOR WOMEN’S RIGHTS seem like great organizations to begin with.
Step 6: Select the best course of action – that solves the problem, saves face and has the best short term and long-term implications for your relationship and venture. Explain reasoning and discuss your solution vis-a-vis other approaches discussed in class.
Our optimal solution was to make a small portion of the women’s salary a package of mainly food but also a little bit of alcohol. This solution fulfills the main goal which is to provide more nutrition to the children. However, our approach does not address the livelihood of the community. Looking through my cultural perspective, providing alcohol in the package does not feel right. However, I had to find a solution that sort of compromises. I do not want to completely strip away the men from their personal decisions because that could lead to tension amongst the men and women in the house which will not make the situation any better. Therefore, I had to go against what I personally think is right a bit because of this solution saving face for everyone. The mothers can continue to feel a sense of independence and happiness through their role in the venture and provide some money and goods to their family. Also, most importantly, the mothers will be able to have their children receive better nutrition. The men will still feel in control of the household and any sources of income (avoiding cultural clashes.) The cooperative, us, will be able to fulfill their main goal which is to provide porridge that is more nutritious for the children in east Arica while also protecting them from possible HIV transmission. Also, we do not come off as invasive and disrespectful to their ways of doing things (men to women relationship).
The solution prioritizes the children and a peaceful relationship amongst all groups: men, and women. However, I do think it will be helpful to speak with the men. Khanjan recommended that a sort of an interview is set up with each man to discuss the alcohol usage. The cooperative will host the interviews but the actual conversation should be between the men and a local leader that understand the harm of the bad habits that the men are partaking in (religious leader, etc).
A solution that was brought up in class was to not provide any money at all and just store credit (for a local grocery store, etc) or through a package without any alcohol. This will be very problematic because the men may feel angered and disrespected by the women and the cooperative which could lead to the loss of workers and consumers because our venture will be viewed as invasive.
Step 7: List the sequence of actions you will take to implement your solution.
Step 1: (Preparation phase) Discuss our approach to the issue to trustworthy locals and community leaders.
Step 2: Take their feedback into account before taking further action.
Step 3: Partner up with locals or local organizations to set up the packages. (Maybe a church, non-profit)
Step 4: Locate where we would be getting the supplies from. Possibly establish a partnership.
Step 5: Distribute packages to the women.
Step 6: After a week or so of the new way to pay the women, set up interviews with all of the men to discuss the issue and our take. Do not be to direct about the transition because you want to save face of the cooperative.
Step 7: Possibly stem out our venture to address this issue in the future or recommend the men who are hesitant to another organization that will help them address their relationship with alcohol.
