Team Members: Kelly Mulvaney, Susan Cheng, Laura Marsiglio

Develop Top 20 FAQs for your project

1. Questions
   1. Identify the most important questions, building on the referee Qs
   2. Why? What? How? How well? How exactly? At steady-state…
2. Provide concise and precise responses to each question

 

Questions:

1. How do PET bricks compare to concrete bricks as a building material?
   1. Our team relied on ASTM Standards used in the construction industry to validate the properties of PET. Using a finite element analysis, PET was predicted to have a compressive strength greater than 12.4 MPa, which is the minimum specified for concrete masonry units.
2. Flammability is a concern if using plastic as a building material. What research have you done to ensure it is a safe material?
   1. Our team is not able to conduct flammability testing in Lehigh’s labs. However, our research indicates that PET is less flammable than other common polymers, evidenced by the use of polyester fibers in children’s pajamas. We have also looked into the possibility of flame retardant additives to increase the safety of the material.
3. Are VOCs a concern when using plastic as a building material?
   1. The chemical structure of PET makes it less likely to release VOCs than other common plastics. In one study, PET was found to have the lowest quantity of VOCs released when exposed to a month of artificial weathering, compared to other plastics commonly found in the recycling stream.
4. How do you plan to recruit entrepreneurs?
   1. We intend to recruit entrepreneurs by utilizing our in-country resources. Our hope is to partner with NGOs that may have insight into the potential workforce. By opening and operating a pilot facility for some amount of time before relinquishing control to entrepreneurs and opening franchise facilities, we will be able to gauge the dedication of potential entrepreneurs. This will also ensure that we recruit individuals who will build a good name for the venture.
5. How much overhead will be required in operating the recycling facility?
   1. An overhead of 2.5 people will be required to operate the facility. We will need a sales person and the facility manager as the full-timers. An additional part-timer will be necessary to assist the facility manager from time to time to manufacture the bricks.
6. How do you make sure that an entrepreneur doesn’t take your idea, run with it, and undermine your venture?
   1. In offering the business in a box product to entrepreneurs, they will have to rely on us to provide: the instruction and training to operate the machines in a safe manner, the machinery itself, and the extensive support network which include suppliers of PET and distributors of the PET bricks.
7. How will individuals in the Philippines, which is known to be a low/middle-income country, secure funds for the initial investment? 
   1. We plan to connect potential entrepreneurs with established microfinance institutions in the Philippines and develop a system where we would help guarantee loans and make them less risky for the MFI. MFIs would take a share of revenues the entrepreneurs earn from selling bricks as loan repayments.
8. What do the distribution channels for current brick manufacturers look like?
   1. Prescon, Holcim, and Republic Cement and Building Materials are currently the top three suppliers of cement bricks in the Philippines in terms of sales revenue. One or many of these types of bricks can be found at most construction supply stores in the Philippines. More research needs to be done on how exactly these distribution channels are set in place and if there are any intermediaries that the bricks go through before reaching the end consumer.
9. What market validation have you done to confirm consumer’s interest in PET brick?
   1. We have conducted research on similar existing products in the Philippine market. We found a company known as Green Antz who is producing ecobricks from sachets. Their success story indicates to us that there is a demand for PET bricks.
10. How do you plan to enter the market and establish credibility for your brick?
    1. We plan on launching our first recycling facility in the Summer of 2022 and building a house out of our own PET bricks in order to market our brand, our products, and our credibility in the Filippino market. We will utilize our existing connections and partnerships, such as UPD, to expand our platform.
11. How do you plan to source the recycled PET? Is there enough plastic PET to support your production rate?
    1. We plan to obtain raw materials by having a kiosk in the recycling facility where scavengers/locals come to exchange plastics for money. After reading through a barangay’s waste management plan from one of our connections at UPD, it was found that about 20% of most waste streams are comprised of plastics. which means there is plenty of PET in the waste stream to support our production rate. PET bottles specifically are one of the most valuable forms of plastic in the Philippines and are the most retrieved due to its high predicted value after consumption.
12. How much waste can a single facility divert in a year? Are you even going to make an impact on the plastic waste problem?
    1. A single facility will be diverting 3200 lbs of plastic from the landfill per week. Three years after launching our first recycling facility, we expect to support 20 recycling facilities that will be diverting 64,000lbs of plastic from the landfill per week. Our goal is not to solve the plastic crisis, but to be a part of the solution.
13. What is the ROI of your venture? Is the return on investment in a fair time frame that would make it financially accessible to entrepreneurs in the Philippines?
    1. In our most recent analysis, we concluded that the ROI would be approximately a little over 8 months. Our ROI meets our goal of a max ROI of 12-18 months for entrepreneurs in the Philippines.
14. Where will the profit that is generated from your venture go?
    1. Profit generated from our venture will go towards maintaining the operation of our venture in providing the training, machinery, and support network to entrepreneurs. Profits will also be used to further market the venture to increase the number of recycling facilities in the Philippines.
15. What is the processing capacity of your ideal facility?
    1. The ideal processing capacity of the facility will allow the entrepreneur to achieve an ROI in 12-18 months. With our current estimated processing capacity of the melter, this is a production rate of 13 bricks per hour.
16. What are the health implications on the workers who will be operating the machinery and melting the plastic?
    1. OSHA does not classify PET as hazardous, and it has not been found to be carcinogenic. However, when it is melted, it has the potential to emit small amounts of volatile organic compounds that could potentially irritate people’s eyes, nose, and lungs. To mitigate the risk of worker injury, strict safety precautions will be put in place and proper safety gear will be distributed to workers.
17. Why did you take a community-scale approach? (What are the drawbacks of current industrial-scale facilities in the Philippines?)
    1. The limiting factors of the current industrial recycling systems include their high operating costs, as well as the high costs associated with transporting recyclable materials to the facility. Their size and capacity also require significant initial investments that may take 2-5 years for investors to see a return. We expect community-scale recycling facilities with the most optimal combination of technologies (specifically, the melter) to see a return on their investment in 8-9 months, and the localized facilities would require significantly less transportation and operating costs.
18. What is the production rate for your bricks? What does that look like in the impact you are trying to make?
    1. Our current estimated production rate is 13 bricks/hour with the melter. We have not done in-lab testing yet, so this is subject to change. This production rate will allow one facility to divert 107 tons of plastic per year.
19. Which molding will produce the highest throughput? Is this one also the one that is the most expensive? How much energy will your machine use?
    1. The melter allows for the highest production rate. This method is actually less expensive than larger scale compression or injection machines. The melter uses 1.12 kW of electricity, which is lower than the compression molder our team looked into.
20. Besides using the PET bricks to construct homes, what other ways can they be utilized?
    1. During the Venturewell Phase II workshop, we spoke with experts that recommended positioning our products to other markets rather than keeping it limited to just housing materials. We see the potential for these bricks to be used for gardening/landscaping and/or artisan purposes as well.
21. How do you plan to scale/expand into other geographic areas to combat their plastic pollution issue?
    1. In July of 2019, members of our team did fieldwork and found that the entire community was energized by the venture and fully supportive of it. With 897 barangays across Manila, there are tons of opportunities for us to gain traction as a venture, especially since the team was approached by many of these neighboring barangays during fieldwork. Not only this, but other countries with the same issue of excessive plastic pollution could benefit from our approach as well, as community-scale recycling generates extra income opportunities for people in middle-low income countries.

Teammates: Bishoy Youhana, Megan Lindle, Asgar Ali

 

Part 1: Ethical Decision Making 

 

Step 1: Determine the facts in the situation:

Implicit facts:

• Due to their inability to conduct research on the matter, the women believe feeding their children gruel is highly beneficial. This is probably a cultural norm that everyone has just gone along with for decades without concrete proof it is sufficient.
• No readily available testing – if they have HIV they might not even know
• The women do not necessarily know how the pesticides might affect the children

 

Explicit facts:

• HIV/AIDS is very prevalent in the region.
• 35% of children in the region is stunted due to poor nutrition
• The child’s main source of nutrition is from the gruel that is made out of maize and bananas
• We have 500 women willing to join the co-operative.
• The crops that will be used for making the porridge are often exposed to pesticides which can have adverse effects on the children.
• Few women are tested for HIV/AIDS
• There is a higher chance of transmitting HIV through breastfeeding

Assumptions: 

• We are assuming that the cooperative will make products that are affordable for the women.

 

Primary issue: 

• Breastfeeding can be potentially harmful in regions where HIV cases are prevalent since it can increase the chances of transmitting the disease to the children.
• Alternative nutritional supplements such as porridge can be offered as a possible alternative to breastfeeding and reduce the growth stunting numbers in the region. However, the ingredients that go into making these are known to be exposed to pesticides which can potentially harm the babies.

 

Step 2 & 3: Define the Stakeholders and Motivations (personal vs professional)

 

• The children: 
  1. Personal:
     1. Want the porridge to taste good
     2. Need food that will help them grow
  2. Professional: None 

 

• The mothers: 
  1. Personal:
     1. Want their children to be properly fed (no pesticides) and HIV/AIDS free 
  2. Professional:
     1. Make money
• Myself/the cooperative: 
  1. Personal:
     1. Improve nutritional status of the children and improve the livelihoods of rural communities
  2. Professional:
     1. Build credibility to get more funding for future projects
• The women who joined the cooperative:
  1. Personal:
     1. Income opportunity
     2. passion for the cause
  2. Professional:
     1. To produce nutrient packed porridge using locally grown produce.
• Government/other groups (secondary):
  1. Personal:
     1. Want to reduce growth stunting cases to go down
     2. Improve livelihoods.
  2. Professional:
     1. Develop the country overall
• Donors (secondary):
  1. Personal: 
     1. Improve livelihoods of the families and reduce the growth stunting
  2. Professional: None

 

Step 4: Formulate (at least three) alternative solutions:

 

1. Exclusively breastfeed children- The mothers could simply breastfeed the children until they no longer need it because breastfeeding can provide essential nutrients that can’t be replicated at an affordable price point.
   1. Ethical principle: consequence based thinking
   2. Pros: 
      1. No risk kids receiving pesticides 
      2. The mothers will not be worried about feeding their children products that they are unfamiliar with
   3. Cons: 
      1. Kids will have poor nutrition
      2. Risk receiving HIV/AIDS from prolonged breastfeeding

 

1. Guidebook/pamphlet detailing which fruits/vegetables contain which nutrients and when is the best time to serve this to their children (0-6 months, 6-12 months, etc.)
   1. Ethical principle: consequence based thinking and ethics of care
   2. Pros: 
      1. No dire need for prolonged breastfeeding (less risk for receiving HIV)
      2. Allows them to understand the benefits and proper nutrition that each food brings; each child will have a more well-balanced diet
   3. Cons: 
      1. Mothers may not be educated enough to utilize the guidebook
      2. Mothers may resort to archaic or traditional solutions rather than the guidebook
      3. May not be as cost-effective as the porridge.
      4. There still could be nutrients from breastmilk that these food lack
2. Use the funds to develop a nutritious and shelf stable porridge. Maybe use more of the funding to better process/wash off the pesticides before they can go into making the porridge.
   1. Ethical principle: consequence based thinking 
   2. Pros:
      1. This way the mothers could be assured that their children would not get HIV from prolonged breastfeeding 
      2. Children will have the essential plus supplementary nutrition from the porridge which can help reduce growth stunting. 
      3. Still will receive nutrients from breast milk; this would be used after the baby is 6 months 
   3. Cons:
      1. Risk receiving pesticides
      2. Will not have enough funding left to market the product 
      3. The baby might still have HIV from birth

 

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

• Pesticides are more common in fruits, vegetables, meats, poultry, and fish
• Pesticides can bio-accumulate in the body. Most people don’t consume enough for it to be fatal, however, the neurotoxins can harm small children.
• In children, pesticides pose a threat to the developing brain and the nervous system.
• Most East African countries import their pesticides from Europe 
• AIDS is one of the leading causes of death in East Africa
• 25% of babies born to women with HIV will also be infected

 

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. 

 

Solution: Use the funds to develop a nutritious and shelf stable porridge and use more of the funding to better process/wash off the pesticides before they can go into making the porridge. This way-

 

• Children will receive good nutrition.
• Children will not be dependent on prolonged breastfeeding for nutrients (decreasing the risk of HIV)
• It would reduce the risk of receiving pesticides but would cost a bit more money.

 

This solution allows the children to not depend on breastfeeding as the only source of nutrients, thus making sure they don’t practice prolonged breastfeeding, reducing the risk of HIV. This also allows the children to receive a good amount of nutrients from the porridge, reducing malnutrition. However, it is more expensive to implement than the other two solutions proposed, and does risk the children receiving pesticides, but if resources are allocated correctly, fruits should be washed carefully, so the pesticide level in the porridge will be minimal. 

 

Having the porridge would be an excellent solution supplement to breastfeeding since it would provide some nutrients that breastfeeding cannot provide. Additionally, processing the local produce before making the porridge with them would let the local women working at the cooperative know that pesticides are harmful and they might share this knowledge with other locals of the region. If done right this might even be able to spark some change in agricultural practices. An advantage of this would be that there could be an important shift from using store bought pesticides to natural pesticides and herbicides like manure.

 

Step 7:  Implications of your solution on the venture

 

• Technology-  the technological implications of the solution would be that it would require more physical capitals such as extra machines to better clean the produce to reduce the potential risk of pesticide residue from the porridge. However, this might also spark a change in the agricultural field since if farmers are aware that the pesticides they use on the produce is harmful, then they would likely use natural pesticides which would help make the solution more cost efficient.

• Economic- the economic implications of the solution is that a lot more money would go in the making of the product. There would be a lot less money allocated for the marketing of the product since many of the target market is unfamiliar with the product. Although this is not necessarily a bad thing, it might not be sustainable for the venture to use local produce to manufacture the porridge in the long run especially if they cannot sell enough of them.

• Social-  the solution has a major social implication in that it is sort of based on the assumption that the consumers of this region would even buy the porridge in the first place. Since mothers in this region are culturally accustomed to exclusively breastfeeding their children, it would be difficult to market the product since it would essentially mean changing their way of doing things. However, if done correctly, the porridge could be supplemented with breastfeeding and would be incredibly helpful with bringing down the growth stunting rate of the region.

• Environmental- the environmental implication of this solution would be that the processing of the produce might leave behind harmful chemicals that might hurt the surrounding environment if they are not taken care of properly.

 

 

Part 2: Grassroots Diplomacy

 

Step 1: Determine the facts in the situation:

Facts: 

• The women have a chance to sell their locally grown produce to the cooperative
• They like this arrangement because it saves them time and money
• When they bring the money back home, they are forced to give it to the males
• Men spend the money on alcohol and other things
• The twin outcomes of the cooperative are not achieved
• I only have 6 months left at this cooperative
• The other members of the board wants things to change as well
• The women are not unhappy about giving their money to the males, but do not like the fact that the males don’t look after their families.

 

Issue: 

• The women cannot use the money directly to improve the nutrition of their children because of aggressive male members of the family who take their money away and use it on alcohol and other frivolous things.

 

Step 2 & 3: Define the Stakeholders and Motivations (personal vs professional)

 

• The children: 
  1. Personal:
     1. Want the porridge to taste good
     2. Need food that will help them grow
  2. Professional: None 

 

• The mothers: 
  1. Personal:
     1. Want their children to be properly fed (no pesticides) and HIV/AIDS free 
  2. Professional:
     1. Make money
• Myself/the cooperative: 
  1. Personal:
     1. Improve nutritional status of the children and improve the livelihoods of rural communities
  2. Professional:
     1. Build credibility to get more funding for future projects
• The women who joined the cooperative:
  1. Personal:
     1. Income opportunity
     2. passion for the cause
  2. Professional:
     1. To produce nutrient packed porridge using locally grown produce.
• Government/other groups (secondary):
  1. Personal:
     1. Want to reduce growth stunting cases to go down
     2. Improve livelihoods.
  2. Professional:
     1. Develop the country overall
• Donors (secondary):
  1. Personal: 
     1. Improve livelihoods of the families and reduce the growth stunting
  2. Professional: None
• Men:
  1. Personal:
     1. They just want the women’s money and want to spend it on desirable things for themselves.
  2. Professional: 
     1. Instead of spending money on alcohol, they could work with the women and make their own money.  
• The six members of the leadership group: 
  1. Personal:
     1. They want what it best for the cooperation
     2. They want the women of the cooperation to use their own money instead of surrendering before their husbands because these members are local women who likely struggle with similar issues.
  2. Professional: 
     1. They want to achieve the twin outcomes of the cooperation.

 

Step 4,5,6: Formulate an alternative solution:

 

• Optimal Solution: Bring together leaders in the community and discuss the issue immediately and talk about the ⅓ rule of payment. Essentially how it would work is, the cooperative would function as an equity firm. The workers can work for the cooperation and have one third of their income be given to them immediately, one-third be saved by the company as bonds and the rest of the money could be used to provide the women with high value products such as goats or chickens which can generate income for their families in the long term. The cooperation could establish a separate store at the cooperative where the workers could use the money right away to purchase these products. This would stop the males from taking the money away because they would already use the money to buy products. This solution also allows the women to generate income for their families for the long term without any major risks because they would be guaranteed their money in the future when the cooperation bond matures. The males would also likely be in favor of this decision because it would mean that they would receive more money in the future instead of a small sum immediately. This solution meets the twin goals because it incentivizes the women to keep working at the cooperation by providing essentials, securing their future through bonds and avoiding having to deal with the males of the households while also making sure that they get the necessary items the women need to properly take care of their families.

 

 

• Pros: 

 

• • • Gives immediate and long term benefits to the the women
    • Gives the men a reason to not take the money from the women immediately since they would get more in the future.
    • Allows the women to buy essential products like the porridge to feed their children which would help minimize the growth stunting in the region

 

• Cons:

 

• • • The men might be resistant to the idea of the women not having enough money to give to them and this might lead to abuse 
    • There could be a trust issue since the idea of bonds might be new to them
    • Getting only one third of the income at a time might not be sufficient for them to sustain their families

 

• Short term implication of the venture:

 

• • • In the short term the venture might run into problems of retaining the workers because having only one third of their income given to them at a time might not work out that well considering the fact that it would be a very low amount.
    • There would be alot of trust issues between the employees and the cooperation since this system of payment would be new to them.

 

• Long term implications of the venture:

 

• • • The cooperation could be able to sustain itself and thrive at some point if they are able to build trust with the women they employ.
    • The women would be happy since they would have a steady source of income as well a plan for their future.
    • This solution could potentially get the males to start doing something productive to earn their own money instead of relying on the women.

 

• Saving face:

 

• • • The women get a chance to save face since they do not need to confront the men regularly about their income since they would spend it on essential items.
    • The cooperation saves face by discussing their ideas with local leaders and getting them on board with their plan and allowing the women to get a steady source of income.
    • The men saves face by not relying on the women for money but getting a job to pay for their own things
    • The committee saves face by coming up with a great plan to achieve the twin outcome goals of the cooperation.

 

• Assistance sought to come up with the solution:

 

• • The class discussion and the group discussion mainly helped in brainstorming ideas from which the group narrowed it down to this solution.

Implementation steps:

• Apply grassroots diplomacy steps to bring about change in the large scale in the long run by talking to local leaders
• Ask the women if the solution works for them 
  • Getting their feedback is very important
• Validate the process and discuss with male leaders (25 to 30 males) and get them on board
• Get recommendations from all of the stakeholders before making any major decisions
• Hire people to handle the bonds/finance related activities 
• Hire people to maintain the store
• Take a survey from the women to see which items they spend the most money on
• From this survey, buy products in bulk for the store
• Get in touch with government officials/organizations to see if they can donate products to the store
• Take surveys from the women in the future to see how the cooperation impacted their lives

Prompt: Grassroots Diplomacy Case 9/8/2020

Step 1: A) Determine the facts

• Jack is an American student who lived at a youth center in Kenya, he is a guest that was helping in giving out gifts during the ceremony
• Kids in the youth center are expecting gifts – once they saw that every other child got a present, they felt deserving of one as well
• Four children were forgotten – as children they are not mature enough to realize that this might have been a mistake
• The hats are not as special as some of the other gifts the other children got – this is unfair to them and why they do not approve of just the black hats
• The staff shooed the kids away after giving them the hats, acting as if the kids were the ones at fault
• The kids blamed Jack for not getting gifts, even though it was the staff’s fault
• Jack discussed with the staff the kids felt upset and left out, but they didn’t acknowledge the problem at all and just got annoyed at Jack 
• Jack may not understand the culture – it may be commonplace in youth centers for children to not get gifts. Jack’s instinct is to accommodate the kids that are left out, but in Kenya they might not think much of this
• Jack wants to save face as well as the youth center (Jack more so though)
• They all live at the youth center
• Only one student gave Jack a glare – the other three may not think it was Jack’s fault?
• Assumption: the black hat is not a good present
• Assumption: all four of the children are indeed upset by not getting presents

 

1. B) Clearly state the ethical issue/issues

• Jack took some credit for getting the gifts, even though they were from the donors, so the four kids that did not receive a present blamed him for that. When Jack brought up the children’s disappointment to the staff, they did not seem to care at all. Now, Jack is faced with the ethical dilemma of figuring out how to solve the problem of not every child getting a gift. To him this is not only unjust, but he also does not want to disappoint the primary people he has been working hard to keep happy all summer: the kids. This matters to Jack because he bonded and got close to the kids throughout his time in Kenya and does not want to disappoint them or for them to think badly of him. He needs to decide what to do about the kids that did not receive gifts. 

 

Steps 2 & 3: Define the stakeholders and assess their motivations

• • Jack
    • Personal: sees the issue at hand as a real concern compared to his coworkers, wants to have good relationships with the kids and workers and for everyone to be happy, wants to be well-liked, wants to remember his experience in Kenya as positive, wants to save face
    • Professional: wants to continue his job at the youth center, does not want to upset the workers, wants to have a good relationship with the workers and be respected by them, wants to handle the situation calmly
  • The children who received presents
    • Personal: happy to receive their presents, see Jack in good standing, might tease the kids that just got black hats
    • Professional: not as applicable since they are kids; but, they feel deserving of a present because the majority of the kids did get a present
  • The children who did not receive presents
    • Personal: very unhappy with their hats (not a sufficient present in their eyes), associate their anger with Jack, feel left out or maybe like they did something wrong
    • Professional:  not as applicable since they are kids; but, they feel deserving of a present because the majority of the kids did get a present
  • The youth center workers
    • Personal: pride – trying to save face by not acknowledging the problem, many of them might have grown up in the center themselves so they have personal reasons for working there but understand that sometimes mistakes like this happen, want things to be smooth without disturbances or unnecessary turn of events
    • Professional: wanting their next paycheck, getting their job done every day, moving on to the next task with the kids

Step 4: Formulate alternative solutions

1. Solution: Jack can purchase four presents on his own for the four children who were left out

• • How does it solve the problem?:
    • No child will be upset because they did not receive a present. Also, this is what is fair because it is not fair for some kids to get presents while others do not. 
  • Pros:
    • The children will receive real presents
    • The children will be more positive with Jack
    • The children will be happy
  • Cons: 
    • The children will not receive the same public treatment as the other kids which was part of why they became upset – they still are probably wondering why there was a delay for them to receive toys
    • Jack has to pay out of his own pocket for the toys
    • The other kids might see this as special treatment
    • Have to be careful of precedents you set because the kids/staff may start expecting this from you regularly
    • The staff might feel uncomfortable if Jack does not tell them, almost going behind their backs
  • How does it save face of those involved?: 
    • Jack helps the youth center staff save face by fixing the problem they made, and also saves his own face since the kids won’t blame him anymore for not getting gifts, since he initially took credit for getting them
    • Jack also saves face for the kids who didn’t get presents as they will not be seen as different from the other kids anymore
  • Implications on relationships:
    • Short Term: Kids will be happy they got gifts and will approve of Jack
    • Long Term: Youth staff might appreciate Jack more for helping solve the problem, Jack saves his own face and the kids end up liking him more
  • Implications on the venture:
    • Short Term: Jack will restore his standing in the eyes of the kids and have an easier time as a worker and maintain his job in the venture
    • Long Term: This is a very minuscule problem as it is overlooked by the workers and only affects a small portion of the kids. It will most likely be forgotten and have no effect in the long term of Jack’s stay.

1. 2. Jack can designate children to partner up and/or share their toys since they live there; promote it as a community donation of gifts everyone can use

• • How does it solve the problem?:
    • It ensures that no child is forgotten and they can access all and any of the toys they want to play with.
  • Pros:
    • Promotes sharing and socialization among the kids
    • They live there so it will be easy for them to share
    • The kids can play with multiple toys; maybe they weren’t particularly interested in the individual gift they were given at first and wanted to play with someone else’s
  • Cons: 
    • The initial four kids left out will probably still be upset they didn’t have a gift given directly to them
    • It could seem that the children are having their toys taken away from them after they were gifted
    • Could lead to more fighting over toys than was anticipated with the original issue
  • How does it save face of those involved?: 
    • All of the kids will be able to play with all of the various toys; no kid gets left out 
    • No one has to pay extra money for more gifts
    • The kids won’t think Jack forgot to buy gifts (they’ll  forget), and the donors won’t have to worry about not getting enough in the first place
  • Implications on relationships:
    • Short Term: The students will be happy with Jack since they can all play with every gift
    • Long Term: The workers may feel like Jack is too controlling in the moment unless he asks for help / or, they will think he is very adaptable 
  • Implications on the venture
    • Short Term: Jack will have a good experience with the kids since he was able to find a solution that made them happy fast 
    • Long Term: The workers might be wary of Jack because he made a big decision without consulting them, but there is also the possibility they would forget about it. They could also see him as a problem solver and quick adapter. This is a very circumstantial implication, since we don’t really know how the workers will react.

 

1. 2. 3. Reach out to donor organization and see if they can accommodate these four students
   • How does it solve the problem?
     • This approach will allow every student to get a gift, without Jack or anyone else having to pay money out of their own pockets. 
   • Pros: 
     • Jack would not have to pay for the gifts 
     • The kids will hopefully receive gifts 
     • The integrity of the youth center can be upheld because Jack saves face as well as the youth organization
   • Cons: 
     • The kids will not receive the recognition
     • It might take time before the kids can receive the gifts
     • The organization might feel attacked and will not want this information about a possible mistake getting out to the public
   • How does it save face of those involved?: 
     • All the kids will get toys
     • The kids that do not have toys will feel happier
     • Jack/the youth center will be seen in a positive light by the kids
   • Implications on relationships:
     • Short Term: Puts stress on Jack’s relationships with his coworkers as they might feel he is taking things to extremes and they might discourage his efforts. Also, this creates a lot of unanticipated work for the donor organization who would think their job is done already.
     • Long Term: If all goes smoothly the workers and organization will most likely forget about Jack’s action as it is a small problem that was hopefully handled well.
   • Implications on the venture
     • Short Term: Jack’s co-workers might be upset with his extreme efforts and be less kind to him as a result. The organization might give Jack a hard time, adding to the work and stress on his stay.
     • Long Term: Jack’s coworkers will forget the incident with time and go back to their original impressions. The organization will be more wary about their donation if they choose to work with Jack and his youth center again.

 

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

• Ethics
  • Injustice – it is unfair that not everyone got a regular gift. Who is to say one child is more deserving than another?
• Peers
  • Working with a student group of 4, we discussed these three approaches and realized that there is no simple answer. The best methods we decided were between approaches 1 and 2, but we still did not think it would be good for Jack to have to deal with the awkward conversation of discussing the payment of the new gifts with the youth center
• Previous cases
  • In the times of coronavirus, health care professionals faced the ethical dilemma of who to save due to the limited supply of ventilators. Doctors and nurses needed to accurately assess and prioritize those with the best chance of survival and use their resources accordingly. While this case is more of a life or death situation, it emphasizes that predicaments such as these can occur on any scale.

 

 

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. Mention also its possible negative implications.

• The best course of action in my opinion is to distract the children momentarily with another activity and then come back to the gifts and teach them a lesson on sharing. Instead of each person exclusively having ownership of one gift, the kids will have the ability to play with any and all gifts that were donated (act like the gift is a lump sum rather than specific to each individual kid). This saves face of the youth center and Jack because now children will have access to a plethora of toys and will be encouraged to socialize and bond over playing with the toys together. 
• This solution has the best implications for relationships and the venture because in my opinion it will illustrate to the youth center employees that Jack is flexible and can adapt well to handle situations professionally and confidently instead of giving in and going out to buy gifts himself. If he was to give in and actually buy gifts or ask the donors to send more, it may set a precedent for the children always getting what they want from him and it could create a bad pattern. 
• This solution will take the least amount of time compared to the other approaches because both of the other approaches will involve getting money and going to a store – being that it is faster the kids will be happier quicker which is always a good thing so no one starts crying or having a tantrum that might affect the other kids. It also is more financially sound than the other approaches because it does not require any more money to be put into gifting. 
• This solution also gets rid of any awkwardness that might ensue if Jack had to tell the youth center he was buying more gifts with his own money or if he had to reach out to the organization to ask them to send more gifts. If he did this, this could create short and/or long term implications on his relationship with the youth center because they might think Jack thinks they are being bad workers and that Jack has to fix their mess for them.
• This solution leads to a win-win for all stakeholders because it quickly deflects the problem and allows kids to have even more options for toys than they had before. They also all live in the youth center, so all the toys will be readily available for them to play with. 
• A shortcoming of this approach is that some kids may fight over the toys. However, sharing is a necessary skill taught to children of all ages so it is good that they are getting exposed to a more friendly and welcoming environment that shares with one another. This approach is also less personalized than each child receiving individual gifts, but it’s better than fully neglecting the four kids that did not get presents. 
• This is also what people do at daycare centers in the US- when centers such as these receive gift donations, no one’s name is given exclusively to the gift for kids to have ownership of one gift- rather, all the kids play together with the toys and have the ability to rotate which toys they want to play with. This also stimulates their brains more since some toys such as musical instruments can enhance hand-eye coordination and toys such as soccer balls can improve kids’ motor skills. Their developmental progression may be enhanced with exposure to more toys. 

Step 7: Step by step implementation: List the sequence of actions you will take to implement your solution. 

• Talk to staff about the idea. This is absolutely crucial because Jack does not want to overstep any boundaries with this set of stakeholders.
• Upon approval, have the kids stop what they are doing and go in another room to do a math/science/some educational exercise. Depending on their age, this deflection of time could make the kids forget they even had presents in the first place.
• Upon returning back to the toys after a short while, explain that the toys are actually for everyone. Start playing with other employees of the youth center to demonstrate the fun of playing with toys together. Promote activities that get the kids to share, such as playing dollhouse if some of them have dolls, dress-up, etc.  This step involves all the stakeholders together coming in harmony to simply enjoy and be grateful for gifts that everyone can have access to. 
• Everyone’s face is saved because there is no need to go out and buy more gifts and the kids are happy and more social with one another. The situation is not worsened; rather it illustrates to the youth center that Jack is really flexible and can adapt professionally to unforeseen situations. 

Prompt:

Lesotho is a small developing country contained within South Africa. You and your team of academic researchers (10 in all) are spending the next two weeks travelling to different communities throughout Lesotho to test water sources for disease-causing pathogens. The testing you need to do is simple but requires significant assistance from the community – showing your team all the different locations where individuals get their water from, and places/methods for storing the water. You do not see the need to pay the community members, considering if someone asked you about your water source, you would not mind driving them up to the lake! The ultimate goal of the project is to understand the lifecycle and characteristics of a specific pathogen, which is found only in this region of Lesotho. Several publications are expected from this research study. A comprehensive profile of this pathogen can help in many ways including development of chemical additives to make the water safe to drink. Is it ethical to conduct this research study? What will you do next?

Step 1: A) Determine the facts

• I am an academic researcher expecting several publications out of the research study in Lesotho, a small developing country contained within South Africa.
• There are clear signs that Lesotho water has disease causing pathogens, which is a major risk to the people of Lesotho’s well-being.
• Their methods for storing water are different, uncommon, and less safe compared to conventional methods the research team practices in their home country. 
• Driving the community members up the lake in exchange for information is considered good enough payment – they do not expect actual pay. In some form this could be taking advantage since the people of Lesotho may not realize that they deserve to pay for their efforts and contributions to the research.
• We need to rely heavily on indigenous knowledge to move towards a clear problem statement or solution – without this knowledge, the research will not be worth publishing.
• The research team and I are experts in pathogen/disease research, and our research is likely funded by an outside source such as a university/lab/government that expects a publication with a clear outcome.
• We are hoping that the chemical additives will make the water safer to drink, but there will be costs involved that we are unsure the people of Lesotho can afford. 
• We are assuming all IRB certifications have been obtained. 
• We are assuming we would get assistance from the local community but who is to say they will be willing to participate?
• There may be implications of not being able to complete the study (funding, brand, relationships may be affected) – to avoid this, ahead of time, we should do more research on stakeholders and attempt to connect with them. 

Step 1: B) Clearly state the ethical issues

• The first ethical issue encountered is: the pathogen only affects a small region out of the entire world; should we concentrate our efforts on diseases that only affect a few people, or on diseases that are widespread and affect a large-scale of people?
• The second ethical issue encountered is: the research team is relying heavily on indigenous knowledge of the people of Lesotho. They are the true contributors to the content of the publication, yet they are receiving no incentives for sharing the valuable knowledge they possess. 
• The third ethical issue encountered is: (In my opinion) we are not being transparent about what we are doing in Lesotho. The people might be so eager to help us because they are expecting us to have a clear solution for them to use right away by the end of our time here. We need to give them more of an education and background on what we are doing and what we hope to accomplish.

Steps 2 & 3: Define the stakeholders and assess their motivations

• Local water company
  • Get out product/earn revenue
  • Help those patients involved
• Funding agency – University/lab/government 
  • Treat spread of disease
  • Reputation of gaining academic knowledge on pathogen
  • Funding agency will have their name attached to the possible solution
  • More advertising – want to be a world leader in the field – want to build up their brand
  • More partners

• Research team
  • Help patients involved
  • Further their career and potentially make money 
  • Earn more money to continue doing research and get continuous funding
  • Credibility, brand, and reputation boost
• Local people
  • Create healthier living environment 
  • Have safer water to drink
  • Lessen the risk of contracting a disease-causing pathogen
  • Excitement to learn and socialize – but their vulnerability may result in wanting you to hear what you want to hear – they do not want to come off as ignorant – they may reinforce your ideas because they think you’re smart and want to agree. On the other hand, some may be weary to trust an outsider so make sure you talk to the right people 
  • Negotiating entry
• Tertiary Stakeholder Hospital/ health care workers (third party to the solution in its direct implications)
  • Treat people with the illness
  • Make sure hospital isn’t always at capacity – prevent future cases
  • Can devote their resources to other fatal and urgent cases 
• Academic Journal
  • Getting new and credible information that will better their reputation and add to their plethora of knowledge
  • Enhancement of their brand – they want to conduct this research first and say they were the first to find information about an area people didn’t know much about
• Yourself (Researcher)
  • Help local communities involved
  • (Hopefully) Actual interest/passion for social impact 
  • Understand the lifecycle and characteristics of the pathogen and the chemical
  • Boost credentials with multiple publications
  • Maintain your job and further career

 

Step 4: Formulate alternative solutions

• Send prepaid sampling supplies and provide incentives to the people to gather water samples/take surveys seeing where people get water from
  • Pros: Save travelling expenses; allows us to test the water in our labs which probably have more resources  
  • Cons: Samples could be taken incorrectly; shipping could take long creating a bottleneck in the research process; we will have the water, but not the background information and statistics on where it was obtained and how many other people also collect water from this area
  • Principle:  It’s better to incentivize the locals to do the work for the research team and help send the samples to us; justice because both parties are receiving benefits; duty-based thinking: not lying/withholding information from the local people – paying them because they deserve it
• To find water sources on our own without any local assistance 
  • Pros: Removes ethical dilemma regarding incentivizing the community; reduces costs
  • Cons: could be gathering water where they do not drink from;  could take much longer than if you asked the community; compromises validity on whether or not I’m taking water from the right place
  • Principle: virtue-based thinking: keeping my integrity and not taking advantage of the people of Lesotho; honesty, individual responsibility
• Give the people of Lesotho a blueprint on how to move forward with what we found; how they can progress with our research findings to stay healthy and lessen the risk of getting the pathogen – and then ultimately make publication available to people here  
  • Pros: more time to find other methods; being upfront with what was accomplished
  • Cons: they may not understand the publication if complex calculations and graphs are involved; they also may not have any tangible benefit from the research right away
  • Principle: honesty/transparency; care-based thinking: want to keep a good relationship
• Have community health workers travel with you during your field work so that there is a trusted person with you to help prevent push back
  • Pros: would lessen the chance of push back; allows for consistent data flow which increases validity; creates a benefit to the people of Lesotho because their water is consistently being tested which will mitigate the risks of them contracting the disease
  • Cons: would have to spend more money on bringing that health care worker along and providing frequent tests
  • Principle: consequence-based thinking: produces the greatest overall good for those affected, most amount of benefits to the most stakeholders 

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

• Previous cases – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6521341/, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4077002/
  • Although this disease-causing pathogen is specific to the area of Lesotho, reading the materials and methods of other research publications could be beneficial before going there. See if there is any mention of how to get the people in the area involved and if they were compensated for their work; if they were compensated, see if there is any mention of the amount that they were paid.
  • One article mentions: The relationship between E. coli counts in drinking water and type of water sources used by households and views of households on neighbourhood open defecation, hygiene practices, livestock faeces and latrine detections in proximity to water sources were analysed
    • These factors could serve as a basis of your research study. If possible, conduct stakeholder interviews regarding these factors before getting to Lesotho
• Research on the Belmont Report/other ethical standards within the research sector
  • The section on justice mentions that one person should not receive benefits while the other subject does not – this is seen as injustice. Without paying the people of Lesotho or giving them any sort of tangible benefit from my research, I as a researcher am committing an act of injustice. 
• Inner reflection
  • Research should not be about getting your name out there and building your credibility as a professional – it should come from a deep passion for helping others. Therefore, it is important to focus on the ethical issues involved in research rather than just the research itself. Even if people are not expecting to be compensated, ethically, they deserve to be because otherwise they are not receiving any benefit. We are simply conducting research – a final product on enhancing water quality will not be established for some time, so in the meantime the least they deserve is compensation.

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. 

• The best course of action is to designate community health workers that will work with my research team during and after fieldwork so that there is a trusted person acting as a representative in Lesotho for us full-time. The compensation will go to them and their team, and the people in the community will benefit from the consistent testing of their water. The funding source will have confidence knowing that the research is always progressing and that the data collected updated and analyzed on a routinely basis. This will ensure consistency and reliability of the study. 
• This solution offers the most benefits to the most amount of stakeholders – the community will know how clean their water is, the community health workers are receiving compensation, and hospitals will be less bombarded with people that have the disease. Other solutions are not as ethical because the people do not receive any tangible benefits and with other approaches the data might end up being misconstrued.
• When keeping a solution in mind you want to keep it practical and efficient. The study needs to be done correctly in order for the research to be successful, and other solutions such as giving them prepaid test kits could risk the validity of the entire project.

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. 

Impact on technology aspect: The consistent research by the community health workers will hopefully lead to a technology that can be used to treat people in this area. This technology could potentially treat other areas where water contamination is an issue too. Although this is the long-term goal of the research, the technology could have negative implications if used incorrectly. For example, if a chemical is created to clean the water, the people there have to be sure to measure the correct amount of the chemical, otherwise it may do more harm than good. Additionally, we do not know the costs of the technology and if people of Lesotho are going to be able to afford it. 

Impact on economic aspect: If the technology is implemented, the Lesotho government or an outside business can capitalize on it, which will spark their economy. Cleaner water could also result in more tourism and could contribute to the economy as well. Alternatively, if the government is controlling, they may price it highly and not make it accessible to everyone.

Impact on social aspect: Socially, the research team benefits the most because they are able to build their credibility through these numerous publications. On the other hand, the people of Lesotho are used to their culture and their own conventional way of living. They may not want things to be changed and they may not even be willing to use the new technology; they also may not trust us since we are foreign to them.

Impact on environmental aspect: The solution will likely involve adding chemicals to the water to make it safe to drink. However, the wildlife in the water may not be able to withstand living in the water with chemicals present, especially if too much of the chemicals get added – which could also affect the nearby plants and animals if there is runoff. If used properly or if the research team goes a different route to create some sort of filtration system that does not require chemicals, the people of Lesotho will be healthier as well as the wildlife present in their water.