Step 1: Determine the facts in the situation – obtain all of the unbiased facts possible. Clearly state the ethical issue.

 

• We received a $5000 grant to make t-shirts from an alumnus
• We are the executive director of Sustainable Lehigh 2030, overseeing student groups working on sustainability initiatives
• The student groups will distribute T-shirts to promote their programs 
• This program is aimed to transform LU into a low carbon circular economy
• Follows the triple bottom line sustainability as a core value
• There are 10 student teams to divide funds amongst evenly 
• 3 t shirt options: Cambodia for $2, Los Angeles for $10, organic from the Lehigh Valley for $25
• The alumnus would like us to buy t-shirts from an ethical source and made in the USA, but it’s the most expensive option.

 

Ethical Issue: Balancing sustainability, ethical labor practices, and cost consideration while keeping in mind the donor’s preferences and the amount of shirts that will be available to each student club. 

 

 

Step 2: Define the Stakeholders – those with a vested interest in the outcome

 

1. Garment factories 
2. Employees
3. Clubs 
4. Alumnus of Lehigh University 
5. Executive Director of Sustainable Lehigh 2030 
6. Lehigh students
7. Lehigh alumni network 
8. Lehigh campus as a whole

 

Step 3: Assess the motivations of the Stakeholders

 

1. Garment Factories are able to increase commercial activity and provide jobs for their workers.
2. Employees have a task to do and are getting paid but also deserve good working conditions and fair pay 
3. Clubs are able to spread awareness of their initiatives and be apart of Lehigh Sustainable 20230
4. Alumnus of Lehigh University wants to support Sustainable Lehigh 2030 and emphasize the aspect of U.S. made products.
5. Executive Director of Sustainable 2030 will be able to promote the Lehigh Sustainable 2030
6. Lehigh students always want more shirts and they will be able to support sustainable causes of their choice.
7. The Lehigh Alumni network will be interested in how this initial donation makes an impact. Could lead to more alumni donors in the future
8. The campus as a whole values sustainability and ethical practices 

 

Step 4: Formulate (at least three) alternative solutions – based on information available, using

basic ethical core values as guide

 

Approach 1:

 

Buy organically from the Lehigh Valley for $25 per shirt

 

Ethical Principle or code: 

 

Consequence based thinking, sustainable, US made, fair wages

 

Pros: 

• made from a company that pair employees fair wage
• locally made
• satisfies both of the alumnus want
• Sustainable
• no shipping cost/pollution
• Will likely lead to 100,000 future grant 

 

Cons: 

• Can only buy 200 t shirts to distribute or 10 per team
• shirts are expensive

Approach 2:

 

Buy from Cambodia for $2

 

Ethical Principle or code: 

 

Duty-based thinking, cost effectiveness, labor standards 

 

Pros:

 

• Pay above the living wage
• lowest cost
• contributing to the global economy
• about 2,500 t-shirts can be made and distributed to students

 

Cons:

 

• Not made in the USA
• contributes to fast fashion and fabric waste
• shipping costs and waste/pollution produced as byproduct
• might not be fully ethical: unethical work hours
• May not lead to $100,000 grant 

 

Approach 3:

 

Buy from LA for $10

 

Ethical Principle or code:

 

Virtue based thinking, Support US manufacturing

 

Pros: 

• It’s made in the USA
• cheaper than the Lehigh Valley t-shirts
• employing undocumented immigrants that may not be able to secure employment otherwise 

Cons: 

• Workers at the factory are treated badly and are paid an unlivable wage
• Could lead to negative publicity for Lehigh
• Could result in not receiving future grant 
• Costly, but not the most expensive option
• Shipping contributes to pollution

 

 

Step 5: Seek additional assistance, as appropriate – engineering codes of ethics, previous cases, peers, reliance on personal experience, inner reflection

 

We could look into further sustainable options to produce t-shirts near the Lehigh Campus.

Based on personal experience we feel that the Lehigh Valley option is clearly the best one. This will satisfy all parties at hand and decrease negative impact on employees and the environment. Consult with labor rights organizations, sustainability experts, and ethical procurement specialists. Consider local and international labor laws as well as sustainability certifications. Could explore a hybrid approach by combining different t-shirt sources. 

 

 

REVISED

• Defends the best course of action vis-a-vis other approaches.
• Analyzes impact of the decision on the venture

 

Comparing all of these solutions and keeping high core ethical values in mind, I think it is best to choose the Lehigh Valley Option. Although Cambodia and LA approaches create wage opportunities for some of the stakeholders involved, these living wages are not entirely ethical as they are below minimum wage compared to US standards. However, these are still jobs and opportunities for people to create income. Furthermore, one of the stakeholders involved asked for US based practices. It would also be best to align with that interest as one of the options is sourcing T-shirts from the Lehigh Valley. In addition, we can secure that 100k grant. The Cambodia approach would not fit this premise, despite it having the best net-product amount at the end. The LA option would fit this premise, but again, it does not exactly seem the most sustainable or ethical. Although less shirts will be produced, I think the sourcing is important for the public to know, especially if we are addressing sustainable objectives. Each club can have ten shirts and that will suffice. The other approaches will have more tshirts per club, but the reasoning behind the amount of shirts is more meaningful than having plenty of shirts to go around. If anything, more shirts create more waste and add to the problem of fast fashion.The grant can be used to produce more tshirts done mindfully the next time the club event is happening. It is best to stay true to our original values in sustainability as it will have less risk in tainting our sustainable code. The other options will incur negative public opinion and have more of a risk of opposing out sustainable code.

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.

Technology: If choosing the Lehigh Valley option, the method of producing the shirts organically will be promoted. Again, sustainable practices will be platformed.

Economic: If looking for gains and best results number-wise, this solution will actually produce the least amount of tshirts and will be seen as the most expensive. However, the value of organic materials make up for the costs of the tshirts.

Social: Good public opinion can arise from this decision as many stakeholders will be pleased. There will be a strong connection between the Lehigh Valley and the campus community as well. Again, green and sustainable measures are promoted and are actually carried out. We can become a honest and transparent entity.

Environmental: With the Lehigh Valley option, we are choosing the best sustainable outcome. Of course, producing tshirts will impact the environment. However, compared to the other solutions, this option will produce the smallest carbon footprint. The other options seem associated with fast fashion practices. An organic tshirt can outlast products of fast fashion, thus proving its value in price.

PROMPT #1:

• Identify the three specific stakeholder groups most impacted by your project. For each one, go through the five elements of framework #2 and identify different answers for each group. In other words, if you’re telling your story to stakeholder group #1 (let’s say, middle school students), what is the context that would be most meaningful to that group? What is the catalyst most meaningful to that group? And so on.

• The centennial school
  • Context: focus on students with neurodivergence or EBD
  • Catalyst: we aim to change the exposure that these students have to the arts
  • Complication: actually entering an arts space can be difficult for these students
  • Change: we create virtual tours using Centennial’s ILC to try to change this issue
  • Consequence: students have had positive feedback with the tours, but we still need to create more and revise them so that they are the most helpful for the students
• Neurodivergent students and students with EBD
  • Context: students with EBD or neurodivergence have limited access to the arts
  • Catalyst: the development of virtual reality technology makes these spaces more accessible
  • Complication: having a space like the ILC is not always accessible
  • Change: we publish virtual tours online on our website so that students can also access those
  • Consequence: the students have access to these tours from their own home and are able to enter these spaces without having to subject to the fear of overstimulation
• LUAG
  • Context: focus on the actual arts space that we are capturing a tour of and how we can alter that tour to best meet the needs of students with neurodivergence or EBD
  • Catalyst: the exhibitions switch every semester, so we are able to continually capture different spaces that LUAG provides
  • Complication: as a team, we have to figure out how to best change and alter our tours based on the new exhibitions
  • Change: we create touch points for the students to click on where they can get more information about the pieces in visual or audio form
  • Consequence: the students have enjoyed learning more about the pieces through the touch points and we will continually work with LUAG to publish more tours

PROMPT #2:

• From the two story frameworks, CHOOSE ONE of them. Doesn’t matter which – choose the one that speaks you to more, or choose randomly. Once you’ve chosen one framework, ignore the other one for this prompt.
• As a team, write the story of your project (as it exists today), using the five story elements in the order in which they are given, #1 through #5. Each element’s section should consist of at least 2-3 carefully constructed sentences. 
• The result should be a coherent, beginning-middle-end story about your project which someone of reasonable intelligence who is unfamiliar with your project can follow and understand, and more importantly, be inspired by. The blog entry should be written as a text-based story, not a bulleted list. You should write it as a first-person plural story – in other words, the character is “we,” the project team.
• Talk it through as a team. Does it make sense? Does it say everything you want and need it to say? If this were the essential structure of your Fall presentations (stretched out to 7 minutes), would it be successful and would the referees know what you were talking about and why? 

Think about the first time you ever entered an art gallery. There are bright lights all around you, people telling you to be quiet, and the expectation to be respectful and stay a safe distance away from the art. There are rules, regulations, and expectations—things that can feel overwhelming for anyone stepping into an art gallery without prior knowledge. These feelings of confusion are representative of the struggles that neurodivergent students experience every day. Children with emotional and behavior disorders (EBD) struggle to connect with arts in the community, sometimes due to lack of exposure but also because of the threat of overstimulation. This problem is widespread throughout the United States, with only seven percent of adults with disabilities ever experiencing an art gallery. We aim to encourage students to experience these unfamiliar places through virtual tours of arts spaces. By creating immersive content for neurodivergent students, they are able to have a connection with the arts within their own school or home environment. These virtual tours are accessible to all through our website, but we directly work with the Centennial School, a K-12 school for students with disabilities, to broadcast these tours to the students. We utilize their Immersive Learning Center (ILC), which is a room with 270° of images and videos projected into their walls. The students are able to experience these arts spaces as if they are actually there, in hopes that more exposure will encourage them to visit these places in person. This has been a slow but inspiring journey; because our project is new, we were only able to accomplish so much. We spent a lot of time working out the logistics of virtual reality technology, using the ILC, and figuring out how best to execute our ideas. Our team has made and published several tours, and the responses from the students we have shown so far have been positive. Ultimately, we have a lot of work to do, but we hope to spread these tours throughout the United States and work more with the Centennial School and its students to figure out how best to help children with neurodivergence or EBD. 

Step 1: Determine the facts in the situation – obtain all of the unbiased facts possible. Clearly state the ethical issue.

 

1. Developing a low-cost syringe for developing nations is critical to ensure access to safe medical equipment.
2. Adding an auto-disable feature to the syringe significantly increases the cost, but removes the risk of spreading disease through open needles not being disposed of properly. 
3. Without the auto-disable feature there is a risk of syringe reuse which can lead to the spread of disease.

 

Ethical Issue: As the designer, we must balance the need for affordability with the need for a safe design of the syringe. With that, we must decide what the best course of action is for releasing the syringe and what design will maximize benefit to the developing world health community while minimizing the spread of disease. 

 

 

Step 2: Define the Stakeholders – those with a vested interest in the outcome

 

1. Regulatory bodies such as FDA
2. Patients in the developing world
3. Healthcare workers who perform injections
4. Hospitals in low resource environments
5. The designer and their team
6. Insurance companies
7. Manufacturers of the syringes
8. NGOs focused on healthcare in the developing world
9. Government’s of nations that will be impacted by the introduction of the syringe
10. Local communities and public health

 

 

Step 3: Assess the motivations of the Stakeholders

 

1. Regulatory bodies want to ensure safety standards are met.
2. Patients want access to affordable and safe healthcare. 
3. Healthcare workers want to use medical devices that are simple and safe.
4. Hospitals aim to use cost effective medical equipment. 
5. As the designer, ethical and financial motivations both play a factor into the design process.
6. Insurance companies want to keep liability as low as possible. 
7. Manufacturers want to keep production costs as low as possible.
8. NGOs prioritize the health of the public first.
9. Governments will not want to bring medical equipment into the nation that is going to cause the nation more harm. For example, the spread or introduction of disease. 
10. Local communities and individuals have a stake in preventing the spread of disease.

 

Step 4: Formulate three alternative solutions – based on information available, using basic ethical core values as guide

 

Solution 1: 

 

Release two different versions of the syringe, one with the auto-disable feature for hospitals and clinics that can afford it and one low-cost version without the safety feature and with red tape warnings and labels. 

 

Ethical Principle or code:  

 

Beneficence- doing good by providing equipment that will be beneficial to the health of communities

Justice- fair distribution of syringes and needles to those in need

Promotes accessibility while maintaining safety standards.

 

Pros: 

• Multiple options are available based on need: Hospitals that are in the most financial need will still be able to access syringes that do not have the safety features, while those hospitals that can afford it are able to get syringes with the safety feature built in.
• Safety feature is still included and recommended.
• Even without the safety feature, syringes will have red tape and warning labels that will contribute to the proper disposal of syringes 

 

Cons: 

• The costs will be higher for safety feature version
• production costs will be higher as two separate versions will be produced
• Will take time and research to develop a more cost efficient feature
• Syringes with only the red tape may not be handled properly ultimately leading to the spread of disease

 

Solution 2:

 

Finish the design of the syringe as is and start mass manufacturing without the safety component.

 

Ethical Principle or code: 

Beneficence- doing good by providing syringes to those in need.

 

Pros: 

• Low-Cost and ready design
• Will increase the total amount of syringes created, purchased, and used
• Low-income environments will be able to get syringes 

Cons: 

• Great potential risk for spread of disease, human health at risk
• Safety feature will never be implemented 
• No way to tell what amount of disease was/was not spread from our syringes 

 

Solution 3:

 

Release the syringe with only the safety feature version.

 

Ethical Principle or code: 

Non-maleficence- does no harm and no risk of spreading disease from our syringes. 

 

Pros: 

• Syringe will be safe to use and prevent the spread of disease
• No additional worker training or education required on disposal

 

Cons: 

• Syringe will be more costly leading to the target market not being reached fully
• Low-income environments will not have access to the syringes they need
• Hospitals may turn to other companies for a cheaper alternative 

 

 

Step 5: Seek additional assistance, as appropriate – engineering codes of ethics, previous cases, peers, reliance on personal experience, inner reflection

 

The engineering code of ethics emphasizes prioritizing safety in healthcare designs which also aligns with the ethical principle of nonmaleficence. Based on past data, syringes with no safety feature will lead to an increase in disease as they are not disposed of properly. Not only spreading disease, these unprotected needles will lead to additional needlestick hazards. Personally, I know that if we release our devices exclusively with no safety feature it is very possible that our company will do more harm than good. 

 

REVISED

• Identifies stakeholders and their motivations
• Defends the best course of action vis-a-vis other approaches.
• Analyzes impact of the decision on the venture

 

1. Regulatory bodies want to ensure safety standards are met. They are on top of investigating upcoming products that will be used on human subjects.Their job is to screen these new products. Our new syringe is part of their work.
2. Patients want access to affordable and safe healthcare. Like the story prompt suggests, a low-cost and accessible syringe will lessen the financial burden for patients all over the world. However, the syringe will be the most impactful in areas where healthcare is not guaranteed. This will leave more patients being saved potentially.
3. Healthcare workers want to use medical devices that are simple and safe. Healthcare Workers are interested in saving and supporting their patients. With safe syringes at their disposal, they can carry out their work and secure human lives.
4. Hospitals aim to use cost effective medical equipment. If these syringes are affordable and low-cost to make, hospitals can save money with these new syringes. Hospitals can allocate their budget to other needed supplies. 
5. As the designer, ethical and financial motivations both play a factor into the design process. With a successful syringe made, the designer can spread their work around the world and gain recognition. Furthermore, with  a successful design and a ready market available that needs that design, the designer will definitely be gaining profit.
6. Manufacturers want to keep production costs as low as possible. Low prices equate to more products being produced. More products produced mean more various customers reached and  willing to pay for these products
7. NGOs prioritize the health of the public first.They can promote the syringe and aid in delivering these syringes to areas needed most. This will boost and bolster their focus and image on supporting human rights.

 

If we were to fulfill the solution of producing these syringes despite having the faulty safety feature, we would create a lot of risk and false hope for the majority of our stakeholders. I think hospitals, NGOS, and especially the patients would suffer the most. There may be instances where the syringes do work and everybody (all stakeholders) win and gain the maximum benefit. However, there is that chance of the syringes failing and producing harm. Knowing this information and still moving forward with the production of these syringes will create a lot of backlash amongst the public.This will ruin the reputations of the stakeholders involved and especially the designer will be held accountable. Furthermore, the blueprint of the syringe would be discarded and not further revised.

 

Another solution posed is to release the syringe with the correct safety feature on. However, the cost of making that syringe will be transparent to the public. This syringe will no longer be low-cost and instead be sold as a regular syringe. Stakeholders involved in selling, distributing, and manufacturing the syringe will receive benefit as the design is circulating. Hospitals will still be able to use the product, but not all patients will have access to this syringe and not all patients can afford this type of healthcare. This solution is half win and half lose. However, this solution is not revolutionary as it does not create a huge impact and solve the larger issue at hand.Furthermore, the solution does not bring anything new to the market. However, compared to solution 1, patients who do have access to this syringe will be guaranteed safeness. The only downside is that only a select amount of patients will have access to this syringe.

 

The other solution is to not release the syringe at all, but instead to release the blueprint and designs of the syringe.The designer gets ro have some recognition as their designs are being circulated, but are open to revisions and modifications. Compared to the other solutions, nothing will be mass produced. The designer will be known for their transparency and efforts instead, thus instilling credibility. Hospitals and NGOs will not have a faulty syringe to work with, but will be on the lookout for further revisions in the future. Patients will not be at risk as the original syringe will not be produced at all. Unfortunately, there is nothing that will serve the patients this time around. However, this solution is the best one as moral principles are applied and the focus is still on securing human health and life. The downside is that nothing changes in the market and no profit will be made. Only good credibility is introduced.