Part I

Step 1: Determine the facts of the situation:
– In the region of East Africa, approximately 35% of children are stunted due to nutritional deficits, and there is a high HIV rate.
– Currently, mothers integrate gruel with breastfeeding from age of 2 months to 24 months. This gruel is not very nutritious (however the mothers believe it is), and could also contain pesticide residues.
– The WHO recommends exclusive breastfeeding until six months; however, in mothers with HIV, breastfeeding is not recommended as it increases the chance of HIV transmission
– We are assuming this case study is taking place in the past, and so there are neither HIV testing nor ART treatments available
– I am an entrepreneur starting a cooperative for women in this region
– The cooperative has a dual goal: (1) improve the nutritional status of the children by making a more nutritious porridge (in stead of the traditional gruel), using local produce (possibly contains pesticides), and (2) improve the livelihoods of the women in the cooperative by providing them an income
– This cooperative is funded by a grant
– The main ethical concerns which has to be addressed is how to implement this venture considering the high HIV rate and pesticide use. Is it more important to focus on avoiding HIV transmission (eating porridge with pesticides) or focus on nutrition (exclusive breastfeeding is the gold standard for infants)?

Step 2: Define the stakeholders:
– Mothers
– Children
– Donor
– Me (the entrepreneur)
– Women in the cooperative
– Local farmers

Step 3: Assess the motivations of the stakeholders
– Mothers: The mothers primary motivation is that they want their children to be healthy. This includes reducing the risk of HIV infection, not letting their children be negatively impacted by pesticides, and for them to be properly nourished
– Children: The children are directly affected by the breastfeeding and gruel. Their health is impacted by HIV transmission, pesticides, and the nutrients they obtain
– Donor: The donor’s primary motivation is for a successful cooperative which increases their reputation, and accomplishes the dual goals they intended to support.
– Me (the entrepreneur): My primary motivation is to make as much impact as possible and to accomplish my dual goals of providing a nutrias porridge for the children in the community, and ensure the cooperative is built sustainably so that the women in the cooperative can improve the livelihoods of their families.
– Women in the cooperative: The primary motivations of the women in the cooperative is to bring a stable income to support their families, and to use that money to improve the livelihoods of their children.
– Local farmers: Local farmers want to make money selling their crops, and therefore would want to sell their products to the cooperative since it would ensure.a stable income.

Step 4: Formulate alternative solutions

Since we are assuming that this community does not have access to ARTs (and HIV is therefore a death sentence), we decided that ethically, the priority of this venture should be on providing a healthy porridge option which can be implemented at a very young age in newborns, in order to minimize the risk for HIV transmission. Because of this, our solutions focused on the best ways to prepare porridge in the cooperative (in order to minimize the harm of pesticides).

1. Have the cooperative grow their own produce (pesticide-free), and employ more local women to do so. This solution is based on the duty-based ethical principle, which focuses on “do only that which you would want everyone to do.” In other words, we would not want out children and communities eating crops stayed with pesticides.
– There are many pros to this approach. First, it creates additional jobs for the women. Additionally, it is the only way we can ensure the crops are pesticide free, since we would be in full control of the crops.
– There are also several cons to this approach. First, it is probably the most expensive option, since we would have to obtain all of the infrastructure for farming, and would have to train all of the additional workers. Second, this could potentially harm the community, since we could be putting other farmers our of business.

2. As part of the porridge-making procedure at the cooperative, include a wash step. This is based on the virtue-based ethical principle, where ethics often times relies on judgement, and what is “honest” depends on the culture. Specifically, the gruel which children are using currently probably contains pesticides. Although this approach does not guarantee the removal of pesticides, it is a better alternative to the current gruel (more nutritious and less pesticides), and still helps to reduce HIV transmission.
– There are many pros to this approach. First, washing theoretically should remove pesticides from the food, eliminating any health challenges which may result from having pesticides in the porridge. Additionally, we accomplish our goals of creating a healthy, nutritious porridge, without needing costly investments like mentioned in solution 1.
– There are also several cons to this approach. Although washing technically should make remove pesticides, it is hard to measure if the wash step is effective, or if the procedure is being followed correctly. Additionally, the water we use to wash the food may not be clean, so we would still have to invest in a filtration system or risk causing more harm than good.

3. Develop a vitamin supplement powder which can be added to gruel so that the children can continue eating gruel but be more nourished. This solution is based on consequence-based thinking, focused on the benefits outweighing the costs. Although the children would still be eating pesticide-contaminated gruel, they would at least be getting the nutrients they need.
– There are many pros to this approach. First, this approach is probably the easiest to implement, since the women are already used to giving gruel to their kids. Additionally, because we are using the basic recipe, it is probably the cheapest option. Finally, this approach solves the malnourishment problem, and prevents the need for breastfeeding (therefore preventing HIV transmission).
– There are also several cons to this approach. First, the gruel the supplements would be added to may still contain pesticides. Second, the supplements may not be as nutritious as incorporating healthy foods. And finally, this approach probably requires hiring the least amount of women for the cooperative, since the supplements would be imported. Since the dual goal of this venture is to provide employment opportunities for the women to help them improve their livelihoods, this is a significant negative.

Step 5: Seek additional assistance
My primary resource for helping to determine the best course of action for this particular dilemma was to speak with individuals from the malnutrition team, who are working on a very similar project. They explained that they have learned incorporating whole, nutrias foods into children’s diets is important, but that supplements can be effective too if they are needed.

Step 6: Select the best course of action
In my opinion, the best course of action is approach two: washing the produce with filtered water to remove the pesticides. Like all three options, this solution will help prevent HIV transmission by allowing a healthy alternative to breastfeeding, while also creating employment opportunities. However, this solution was chosen as it best upholds the interests of all of the stakeholders, and is the cheapest, healthiest option. Specifically, this solution accomplishes the dual goals of providing a healthy, pesticide free, nutritious gruel alternative, while also maximizing employment opportunities for women (unlike the supplement solution) without taking away from local farmers (like solution one). Additionally, it is better than solution 1 because it is cheaper, and better than solution 3 because using nutrias whole foods is better than using supplements.

Step 7: What are the implications of your solution on the venture
Socially, this solution will have positive impacts on the venture, since it will maximize employment opportunities for women in the cooperative, without taking away from local farmers. Economically, this solution is a good option for the venture, since it avoids expensive investments (using local produce instead of starting a new farm). Additionally, by using local produce from farmers who are already established is a very economically sustainable option, since there will be very little maintenance or unexpected costs in the future for the cooperative. Environmentally, this solution is neutral. Unfortunately, our solution does not prevent pesticide use, which is bad for the environment. However, since pesticides are already being used, our solution does not specifically have an impact on the environment. Finally, this solution does not really have any technological impacts, since there is no new technology being developed.

Part II

Step 1: Determine the facts of the situation:
– See Part I, Step 1
– Six months after the launch, the cooperative is thriving
– Women work 9 hours a day, maybe KES 300, and have the opportunity to sell the produce grown on their farms to the cooperative
– Strong sense of community and identity at the cooperative
– Only problem is that when the women bring their earnings home, the women must turn the money over to the men in the family, who often waste it on frivolous things instead of helping the livelihoods of they families.
– I as the entrepreneur am on the leadership committee for the next six months
– The other six members on the committee are locals who understand the problem and want things to change
– The women in the cooperative are convinced nothing can be done because thats just the way it is in their community.

Step 2: Define the problem and stakeholders:
– The main problem is that the women are not able to use their earnings to support their families like they want to, but the community culture means that they have to give the money to the men in their families. Although we are not sure on the specific culture, asking the women to defy the culture could be dangerous for them, since the men could get angry. How can we continue to push for the dual goals fo the cooperative without putting the women in a bad position?
– There are several stakeholders in this problem: Me (the entrepreneur), the women in the cooperative, the children, and the men who are taking the money

Step 3: Determine and distinguish between the personal and professional motivations of the stakeholders
– Me, the entrepreneur: As an entrepreneur focused on social impacts, my personal and professional motivations are probably the same. Specifically, I want the cooperative to be successful and to achieve the twin social outcomes of financially empowering the women and providing nutritious foods for the infants in the region.
– The women in the cooperative: Personally, the women in the cooperative want to make money to support heir families, and for their children to be healthy. They probably also want to make sure their husbands (and other men in their families) are happy, and that they maintain a good relationship. Professionally, the women probably want the cooperative to be successful, to make money from the cooperative and their farms, and to work in a positive, community-focused cooperative.
– The children of the women in the cooperative: The children are personally motivated by their mother’s ability to provide for them and take care of them.
– The men of the women in the cooperative: The primary personal motivations of the men is that they want to be in charge of the money (as is the cultural norm), and want to be respected by their wives. In addition to taking care of their families, they probably also want to be able to enjoy themselves (and spend money on frivolous things).

Step 4: Formulate alternative solutions
1. Compensate the women in goods (for example, food, personal care products, etc) instead of money
– The primary pro for this approach is that the women are able to use their time at the cooperative to support their families, instead of having the money wasted on frivolous things by their husbands.
– The primary con for this approach is that the husbands may be upset that the women are not bringing any money back, and the women may be less willing to work long hours without monetary compensation. Additionally, it may be hard logistically to determine what the women want and need.
– This approach saves face for the women because they do not have to directly face their husbands about wasting the money, but are still getting what they want in terms of providing for their families. Additionally, this solutions saves face for the cooperative, because it would now be achieving its twin goals.
– In the short term, this approach may negatively impact the relationships within the families, since the men may be angry at the women for note bringing money home any more. In the long term, however, the family will hopefully be better off.
– In the short term, this approach will have positive implications on the venture since the women and children will be receiving things that they need (improving the livelihoods of the women, one of the goals). In the long term, the children may have more resources are be better nourished, but the cooperative may have trouble finding new women to join since there is no monetary reward.

2 .Instead of paying the women KES 300 per day, pay them KES 150 and provide KES 150 in equivalent coupons for them to exchange for food and personal products.
– The primary pro for this approach is that it is easier to integrate into families, since they are receiving both cash (which the husbands expect) and the products they need (improving the livelihoods of their families).
– The primary con for this approach, however, is that the men can still waste a lot of the money. Additionally, it may be challenging to determine which products should be offered in exchange for the coupons.
– This approach saves face for the women by allowing them to still bring money for their husbands, while they are still able to purchase (indirectly) the products they need for their families. Additionally, it saves face for the cooperative since it allows for the dual goals to be accomplished.
– In the short term, this approach may still have negative implications in the relationships within the family, since the men may still be upset at having less control over the income. – In the long term, families will hopefully get used to this way of compensation and the relationships will restrengthen.
– In the short and long term, this will hopefully have positive implications on the venture, since it will allow for the accomplishment of the twin goals (by allowing for the improved livelihoods of the families).

3. Give the women the option to receive shares in the cooperative instead of receiving cash. These shares will increase in value, and can be liquidated for a large lump sum of money.
– The primary pro for this approach is that the women will still be receiving money (therefore making the men happy), but because they would receive it in larger quantities, the men are less likely to spend it on frivolous things, and more likely to spend it on an investment, like purchasing animals for a farm.
– The primary con to this approach is that it does not immediately enable the women to help their children, and the men would still be in control of how the money is spent.
– This approach saves face for the women by allowing them to still bring money for their husbands, but in a different more, long-term focused way. Additionally, it saves face for the cooperative since it allows for the dual goals to be accomplished.
– In the short and long term, this approach probably will not impact the familial relationships too much, since the men are still receiving money and are ultimately entirely in control of how it is spent.
– In the short term, this option will not positively impact the venture, since the women won’t be able to use the money immediately to help their families. In the long term, however, it could significantly aid the women in improving the livelihoods of their families, by allowing them to invest in things which they need for the family.

Step 5: Seek additional assistance
In oder to make sure that the approaches were appropriate, I made sure to consider points made during class discussions, and to read about cooperatives (this allowed me to see how option 3 is feasible).

Step 6: Select the best course of action
In my opinion, the best course of action is approach two, because it allows for a win-win with all stakeholders, and allows for the twin goals of the cooperative to be best accomplished. Specifically, this solution is a win-win because the women get coupons which they can exchange for products and nutritious food which they need for their family, while the men get the money they expect based on the culture. Additionally, unlike option 3, this solution allows for the livelihoods of the women and their families to improve immediately, and unlike option 1, doesn’t jeopardize the future of the cooperative (men might not allow the women to keep working if they’re not bringing back any income. The primary challenge for this method is that it may be difficult to choose which products are available for the women to use their coupons on. This can easily be fixed however by making sure the women have an active say in how the strategy is operationalized.

Step 7: Sequence of actions to implement solution
– Survey the women in the cooperative about their opinions on implementing solution 2, on what products they would want available to them, and on any concerns they may have about how the men may handle the transition
– Obtain products in bulk to minimize costs, and set up prices / coupon system.
– If the women expressed any concerns about their husbands in the initial survey, make sure to address those concerns during the transition (for example, by sending a notification to the men about the change in payment structure, so that the women are not responsible for telling their husbands, therefore helping them to save face).
– Change the women’s income to cash plus coupons.

Step 1: Determine the facts of the situation:
– Jack is an American student working on a social venture in Kenya, where he interacts with children and collaborates with local staff at a youth center
– One Saturday, kids under the age of 14 were given presents
– The presents were donated by international donor, and were staff members from the youth center picked up, organized, allocated, and labelled the gifts for the presents
– There was a gift-giving ceremony, where Jack was told to and out the gifts
– Four children did not receive presents. These four children received black hats from the staff (not Jack) after the ceremony (not in in a ceremonious way like the other children, instead they were simply shooed away)
– The children were under the assumption that Jack got them gifts (Jack did nothing to correct this false assumption)
– The kids who did not receive a gift handed out by Jack during the ceremony (and received a hat from the staff instead) blamed Jack
– Jack knows a good relationship with the kids will help him with his work at the youth center
– Jack met with the staff and discussed how the kids who did not receive a present felt left out
– The staff did not acknowledge the problem, were upset that Jack made it out to be their fault, and told him to fix it himself. The staff also called Jack a “children’s rights activist.” (The staff’s reaction could imply that the Jack does not fully understand the cultural norms at the youth center, or that he could have unintentionally criticized the staff on how they run the center).

Step 2: Define the problem and stakeholders:
– The main problem that Jack faces is whether or not he should do something more to address the children who did not receive presents, and if so what should he do. This problem is important to address because the way he responds could affect his relationship with the children and staff that he will be working with at the youth center, and could therefore affect the kind of impact he can make during his time doing social work there.
– There are three major stakeholders: Jack, the kids at the youth center, and the staff at the youth center. (Additionally, the international donor organization is a stakeholder, however, they are not as relevant as it pertains to the main problem described above).

Step 3: Determine and distinguish between the personal and professional motivations of the stakeholders
– Jack: Spending five months working on a social venture at the youth center, Jack’s personal motivation is probably to maintain a good relationship with both the kids and staff so that he can have an enjoyable experience. Additionally, he probably wants the kids to be happy. Professionally, however, his priority is probably to maintain relationships with the center staff, since they will be assisting him on his social venture.
– Kids: Personally, the kids are probably most concerned with being being treated fairly, and not feeling singled out. They all want to feel like Jack cares about them. (The children probably do not have any professional motivations).
– Staff: Professionally, the staff wants to maintain a well-run youth center and to feel respected and appreciated by visitors (Jack). Additionally, the staff wants to focus on important issues, and not have to worry about “trivial” or “unnecessary problems” which will take away from their work with the children. Personally, the staff is probably also motivated by the helping the kids and by being seen as people who care for kids at the youth center.

Step 4: Formulate alternative solutions
1. Jack approaches the staff again to explain his side (and apologize for making them feel like he was blaming them), and apologizes to the kids who did not receive gifts.
– This approach solves the problem and saves face of those involved by addressing the feelings of both the staff (they felt blamed when Jack approached them earlier, and were worried he was going to cause trouble in the future) and the children, (some of them felt that Jack forgot about them), while allowing Jack to maintain good relationships with both of them (by apologizing and explaining his side).
– The primary pro for this approach is that it allows all stakeholders to feel respected and appreciated. Additionally, it will make Jack feel better, since he is currently worried that the kids blame him. In the short and long term, this could positively impact the relationship between Jack and the staff/kids at the center, and therefore allow him to better complete his social work.
– There are several cons for this approach, however. First, if Jack does not articulate his apologies correctly, he may make things worse with the staff and/or children. Second, the staff already thinks that he is blowing the problem out proportion, and so by bringing it up again, they may get even more worried that he is going to create unnecessary problems for them at the center in the future, thereby worsening the relationship and the experience for Jack as well. Finally, although the children may appreciate the apology, it probably will not make up for the embarrassment they felt at being left out. Therefore, in the short term, this solution has the potential to make things worse for Jack’s relationships with the staff and kids, which could have long term implications on his venture since he will be less able to work effectively at the center.

2. Jack says and does nothing else about this particular gift ceremony, but makes sure to double check the fairness of anything else that he is involved in in the future.
– This approach solves the problem and saves face of those involved by following the staff’s implicit advice that it is a trivial matter that does not need to be addressed.
– There are several pros to this approach. First, in the short term, the relationship between Jack and the staff will be maintained since Jack will be following their implicit advice and not “creating any more unnecessary problems”. In the long term, this will positively impact the venture since good relationships with the staff will help Jack accomplish his social work. Additionally, in the long tun, Jack will hopefully also be able to rebuild the relationship with the kids who felt left out, by personally making sure something like that doesn’t happen again.
– The main con to this approach is that in the short term, Jack is doing nothing to address his relationship with the kids who felt left out. Despite this being a con, it does not have a negative short or long term impact on the venture, since the damage has already been done (the kids already feel left out, and nothing can really make up for that other than time to move on and forget).

3. Get gifts himself and hold a ceremony for the children who did not receive presents at the first ceremony (without necessarily getting approval from the staff, since they obviously don’t think it is a big enough problem to need fixing).
– This approach solves the problem and saves face of those involved by allowing the kids who didn’t get gifts to feel respected and appreciated in the same way that the other kids felt.
– The main pro to this approach is that it has the potential to improve the short and long term relationship between Jack and the kids who felt left out, which could positively impact his social venture (both now and in the future).
– However, there are many cons to this approach. First, holding a separate ceremony could potentially make the kids feel even more left out, due to the fact that they are being singled out again. Additionally, the kids who got a gift originally, but not at this ceremony, may now feel left out (both therefore negatively impacting the relationship between Jack and the kids, and potentially his venture). Most importantly, this approach will definitely negatively impact Jack’s relationship with the staff. They already think he is creating an unnecessary problem, and further undermining their authority could severely damage their relationship and any help they could provide to the venture in the short and long term. Although in most of the other solutions the long term impact is less concrete, this particular could severely damage Jacks relationship with the staff in the long-term, since what he is doing completely disrespects their authority what they said earlier.

Step 5: Seek additional assistance
– In oder to make sure that the approaches were appropriate for the Kenyan culture, we researched the Kenyan gift culture. Compared to the American gift culture, the Kenyan practices are much less concrete, and tend to be appreciated rather than expected, and of smaller value. Additionally, I researched a little more on mailing relationships in Kenya, and I learned that “maintaining honor and dignity are paramount” (www.commisceo-global.com/resources/country-guides/kenya-guide). Because of this, in choosing my best course of action, I focused on not undermining any stakeholder.

Step 6: Select the best course of action
– In my opinion, the best course of action is approach two: Jack says and does nothing else about this particular gift ceremony. Based on the culture and the priority of saving face, this option is definitely the best solution (as described in detail above). For Jack, this solution is best option for maintaining good relationships, and therefore allowing him to work effectively for the remainder of his venture. For the staff, this is the best solution because it maintains their dignity (Jack follows their implicit advice) and prevents them from getting more worried that Jack will cause problems in the future. Finally, although this problem does nothing to undo the embarrassment that the kids who did not receive presents felt, it also does not make the situation worse. Ultimately, the children were already hurt by the being left out, and the only thing which can make them feel better is giving them time to move on and making sure that it doesn’t happen in the future (the other solutions had potential to help the kids, but also could have made things worse).

Step 7: Sequence of actions to implement solution
– Jack listens to the staff, and realizes that the problem is “trivial” and that he should not create unnecessary problems
– Jack does nothing else regarding this gift giving ceremony
– Relationships between Jack and the staff and kids are not impacted negatively, and they can grow moving forward, therefore positively impacting the venture
– In the future, Jack will make sure to check the fairness of any gift giving beforehand, and will respect the dignity of the staff and children in trying to solve any problems which he may notice (for example, if the same thing were to arise, he may point out the shortage of presents in advance, and kindly suggest presenting the black hats in the same ceremonious fashion)

Step 1: Determine the facts of the situation:
– Myself and a team of 10 other research will be spending 2 weeks in Lesotho studying a specific disease-causing pathogen
– This disease-causing pathogen is specific to the area, and the community members know it is there
– This research requires community members to show us the location / methods of collecting and storing water. Paying the community members who help us accomplish this is optional.
– My team’s goal is to publish as a result of this research (specifically, focusing on the lifecycle and characteristics of the pathogen)
– In the long run, the results of this research could help the community by aiding in the development of water purification chemicals
– There are two ethical concerns which have to be addressed. First, is it ethical to conduct this study. Second, is it ethical to conduct this study without compensating the community members for their time. In regards to the first question, we already know that it is ethical to conduct this study, as it is not explicitly a human subjects study (just collecting data on pathogen). The answer to the second question is a little more complicated, however, and is discussed in detail depending on the different potential solutions. Since the study can be conducted without the community members needing to take time out of their day (we could just “tag-along” as they go to collect water), it is ethical to run this study without compensation. Additionally, because the research has potential to benefit the community in the future, it is not necessarily exploiting the community for personal gains. However, in this case, the quality of our research might suffer. Since getting good quality research is essential for us to accomplish our goals (and help the community long-term), we have to consider how much extra participation from the community is needed, and we can accomplish this ethically.

Step 2: Define the major stakeholders:

– Myself and my research team
– The community members in the region where the research is being conducted / who use the water where the pathogen is found
– The organization who is funding the research

Step 3: Assess the motivations of the stakeholders

– Myself and my research team: As researchers, our primary motivations are to collect good-quality data, and to use that data to publish. In addition to this, we are probably motivated by the fact that by doing so, our research has the potential to actually help this community in the future.
– The community members in the region where the research is being conducted / who use the water where the pathogen is found: Members of the community probably have different motivations and interests as it pertains to this research project. Although the majority of the community members probably are motivated by the potential to have cleaner water in their community, many of them are probably more focused on their current situation; for example, on providing for their families and maintaining a strong community.
– The organization who is funding the research: The organization who is funding the research (for example a grant, university, or program sponsor) is probably most motivated by getting the best results for the least amount of money. For them, it is important to get high quality data, as prestigious publications will create a better name for themselves, attract more research teams, and contribute to their mission as an organization (for example, to improve global health, etc).

Step 4: Formulate alternative solutions

1. Partner with an established NGO on the ground in Lesotho, and compensate them for helping us conduct the research
– There are many pros to this approach. First, by working with an established organization, we know that we will be working with professional members of the community, who are dedicated to working towards long-term goals. Additionally, as an NGO, they probably have connections and resources (such as vehicles), which will help our research run smoothly. Finally, the bureaucratic nature of most NGOs will mean that the guidelines for compensation will probably already be established, and we will not have to worry about determining who or how much to pay.
– There are also several cons to this approach. First, the need to compensate an NGO for their time is probably the most expensive option. Additionally, the bureaucratic nature of NGOs may result in challenges (for example, getting the correct approvals and working with the right people).

2. Hire specific community members (for example, a community leader) to help us conduct the study, and compensate them an average working wage for their time
– The primary pro for this approach is that the quality of our research will be very high, due to the fact that we will be working with chosen community members. Additionally, the community members who we will work with will receive compensation which will help them provide for their families.
– There are also several cons for this approach. First, the need to compensate these individuals will result in higher research costs. Additionally, it may be challenging to choose the correct people to work with, and may create tension in the community if we do not hire fairly. Finally, by paying individual community members for their help, it creates future expectations that may negatively impact future research efforts.

3. Educate community members on the importance of the research, and work with individuals who are willing to volunteer their time in order to help
– The main motivation to choose this approach is to save money. Additionally, since the research can be conducted by simply asking to tag along with community members collecting water samples, it is ethical to not pay them.
– The main con to this approach is that the research quality may suffer. Because we are asking community members to volunteer their help, they may not be as forthcoming with taking the time to explain things or connect us to additional community members who may be helpful. Additionally, although the community members will know that the research may benefit them in the future, it is not helping their livelihood in the present.

Step 5: Seek additional assistance

My primary resource for helping to determine the best course of action for this particular dilemma was my own fieldwork experience in Sierra Leone. Having seen how beneficial being partnered with a local NGO was, I was able to choose the best course of action.

Step 6: Select the best course of action

In my opinion, the best course of action is approach one: to partner with an established NGO. Knowing that my primary goal is to collect high quality data while still conducting ethical research, I believe this is the best option. Having seen first hand how important it is to have local connections in order to navigate the cultural norms and navigation/logistical challenges, I believe this approach gives the best solution while minimizing cons for other stakeholders. For example, although community members will probably not be directly compensated (like in option 2), the NGO will be able to give us guidance on what is culturally appropriate/expected in terms of compensation for any individuals we may work with. Additionally, although the organization who is funding the research may prefer the minimal expenses of option 3, I believe that their interest in getting good quality data in order to extend their mission is a higher priority, and therefore would satisfy their interests.

Step 7: What are the implications of your solution on the venture

Economically, this solution will negatively impact the venture since we will have to compensate the NGO we are working with. However, as a result, the potential social impact of the venture will be positive overall. Although in the short term, the social impact will be neither positive nor negative (by choosing to work with an established NGO, we are avoiding any potential social complications of choosing which community members to pay), in the long-run, the social impact should be positive due to to the increased quality of the research resulting from an on-the-ground partner (which will ultimately lead to better health outcomes in the community). Similarly, there is a potential for this project to have positive technological outcomes, due to the high quality-research pushing advancements in water purifications (however, this is a long-term, indirect outcome). Environmentally, this solution should not have much of an impact, since we are working with on the ground partners and there should be no additional environmental impact by our project (for example, by using the vehicles which they are already using).