Part 1: Ethical Decision making
Step 1: Facts of the situation
- Gruel is used to complement breastfeeding in children from the ages of 2-24 months.
- Gruel is made of cornmeal and bananas and has very little nutritional value, but the mothers think it does.
- I have received a grant to establish a women’s cooperative in this region of East Africa where ~35% of children are stunted due to poor nutrition
- The grant will fund the creation of a nutritious porridge made of local produce that can be used to wean children off of breast milk at 6 months.
- HIV/AIDS is prevalent in the region and can be spread through breastfeeding.
- 500 women are interested in working on the co-op to improve their livelihoods, but they do not all believe that the porridge will work as a weaning food.
- Pesticides are used to grow many crops in this region, including the crops that can be used in the porridge, but the pesticides can cause adverse health effects for infants.
Step 2: The problem and the stakeholders
The ethical dilemma is if it is worth it to introduce foods with higher nutritional value but potentially dangerous pesticides in an area with a high percentage of childhood growth stunted due to poor nutrition.
- Mothers in the region
- Children who breastfeed (infants)
- The donor for the grant
- Me
- Women’s Cooperative
- Local cash crop farmers
Step 3: Stakeholders’ Motivations
- Mothers in the region
- Want children to be healthy
- Don’t want to pass HIV to children
- Don’t want children to have adverse effects from pesticides
- Want children to be properly nourished
- Children who breastfeed (infants)
- They are directly impacted by the breastfeeding/pesticides
- They need to obtain all required nutrients
- The donor for the grant
- Wants its money to be spent properly
- Wants a good reputation
- Me
- Provide nutritious porridge for the children
- Ensure the cooperation is built right and is sustainable/scalable
- Invested in seeing the impact through
- Women’s Cooperative
- Wants to provide children with a nutritious porridge to wean children off of breast milk
- Are skeptical of the impacts of pesticides and of HIV transmission
- Wants to attract investors to the cooperative
- Want to bring in a stable income to support their families
- Wants good reputation
- Local cash crop farmers
- They grow the crops that are being bought for the porridge
- Financially invested- want to sell their crops
Step 4: Alternative Solutions
- Women in the co-op could ensure proper washing and peeling of the produce when preparing the porridge.
Ethical principle: virtue-based: The pesticides are being removed
duty-Based: We wouldn’t want our own children eating foods with pesticides
-
- Pros
- Women’s co-op can focus their attention and money on the two primary goals of the co-op, improving nutrition levels and livelihoods of rural families, which would make the grant donor satisfied with the work being done
- Children would still get nutritious foods if they choose to purchase this product
- Pesticides are removed
- Cons
- Peeling produce tends to take away many of the valuable nutrients
- Does not address the concerns of prolonged breastfeeding with HIV/AIDS
- Pros
- Education program for use while marketing the new porridge market (lower chance of HIV transmission)
Ethical principle: virtue-based: Women are being educated
-
- Pros
- Can lead to positive behavioral change that can impact nutrition levels and lower HIV levels
- Positive press for the women’s co-op
- Cons
- Lots of effort and money to implement these programs
- Still have to compete with gruel makers
- Pros
- The cooperative grows their own produce (pesticide-free) and employ more local women
Ethical Principle: Duty-Based: we wouldn’t want our own children eating foods
with pesticides
- Pros
- Creates jobs for women
- Not only the cooperative but the community as well can have access to clean and healthy crops
- Can be fully in control of the crops
- Children will get the nutrition that they need
- Cons
- It may cost more setting up another piece of land
- Have to educate the women on farming practices
- Will put some farmers out of business
Step 5: Seek additional assistance, as appropriate
We learned from the malnutrition team in Sierra Leone about creating a product for children and have learned the importance of incorporating whole, nutritious foods into childrens’ diet. However, supplements can be effective too if they need to be used.
Step 6: The best solution
The best course of action in this case is for the women themselves to wash the fruit themselves. As removing the skin does remove a lot of the nutrients, it may be possible to use supplements in this product as well as we learned from the malnutrition team.
Step 7: Implications on the Venture
- We have to educate the women to make sure they properly wash all the fruits and vegetables
- We have to know how to install a filtration system properly so that the water is clean
- Children will not consume as many pesticides
- Children may not get as much nutritional value depending on how necessary the peeling of the fruit is for cleanliness if the water is filtered and if the use of supplements is possible
Part 2: Grassroots Diplomacy
Step 1: The facts of the situation
- Coop is thriving
- Women work 9 hours a day, make ~$3
- Women save time and money traveling to market
- Happy with the coop and the sense of identity
- Women turn over their money to men in the family
- Men waste the money
- One of seven members of the leadership council
- Have six months left on the committee
- Committee wants things to change
- A patriarchal society where men have say on money
- Though the cooperative is thriving, it is not achieving the twin social outcomes of improving the nutritional status of children and the livelihoods of rural households.
Step 2: Define the problem and the stakeholders
The problem is that the money the woman make at the coop is going to their husbands and other men who waste it on frivolous things. You are just one of the board members and don’t really have too much say.
- Women involved in the coop
- Other board members
- Children and families who eat porridge
- Coop worker families
- Men who take the money
- Me
- Original Donor
Step 3: The stakeholders’ motivations
- Women involved in the coop
- Personal
- Feed their children good food
- Make their husbands happy
- Professional
- Make money that goes towards the family
- Feel empowered
- Personal
- Other board members
- Personal
- Avoid stirring up drama for something that does not concern them as much as it does me.
- Healthy children
- Professional
- Have a fully functioning co-op
- Personal
- Children and families who eat porridge
- Personal
- Continue purchasing this decent product
- Health of the children
- Professional
- none
- Personal
- Coop worker families
- Personal
- Improved nutrition levels
- Wanting a better livelihood
- Not spending too much money on things that benefit the children
- Professional
- none
- Personal
- Men who take the money
- Personal
- Enjoy their life and continue to spend money on frivolous things
- Professional
- Not look embarrassed
- Personal
- Me
- Personal
- Maintain strong relationships with the women in the co-op and board members
- Ensure the safety of women in the co-op if they get into an argument with their husbands
- Professional
- Meet the twin social outcomes of the project- improving nutrition levels while also improving livelihoods in rural households
- Social impact
- Personal
- Original Donor
- Personal
- Making the desired impact that is aligned with his/her own morals and goals of the project
- Professional
- Achieve higher nutrition levels in children and better lives for women in the co-op
- Personal
Step 4: Alternative Solutions
- Compensate the women in food, personal care products, etc. instead of money
- Pros
- Women are able to support their families with goods and foods
- The products and nutrients are going directly to the children in town rather than just to the cities
- The children will have more resources
- Cons
- The husbands could be upset that the women aren’t bringing money back with them
- Hard to predict what goods the women need
- The women may be less willing to work such long hours without monetary compensation
- Might be hard logistically
- Implications on relationships
- Short term
- Men may be angry at the women for not bringing home money
- Long term
- Family will be better off (may eventually build relationships in the family)
- Short term
- Implications on venture
- Short term
- The children will receive the necessary nutrition
- Long term
- The venture will achieve both of its goals
- Short term
- Pros
- Convince board to incentivize families to spend money responsibility
- Pros
- Families will spend money more responsibility
- Money women make will be used more reasonable
- Cons
- It would be tough to make sure the correct purchases are incentivized properly/fairly
- Saves face for women who now have good reason to spend on what they wanted to
- Implications on relationships
- Short term
- Empowers women and makes sure children are getting the nutrition they need
- Long term
- Might harm relationships with men as they feel like they have less control over time
- Short term
- Implications on Venture
- Short term
- Women should be able to spend their money on more reasonable purchases
- Long term
- Incentives may not be enough, problem may persist
- Short term
- Pros
- Do nothing
- Pros
- Not interfering in culture
- Women are not necessarily opposed to men taking money anyway
- Not putting women at risk since not taking money away from men
- Cons
- Men can still waste money
- Children do not receive as much food/nutritional value
- Saves Face for the women and their husbands
- Implications of the relationships
- Short term
- There is no tension in relationships between men and women because the status quo is maintained
- Long term
- The issue could cause problems down the line as the children aren’t getting important resources like food and clothing.
- Short term
- Implications of the venture
- Short term
- Venture still not achieving dual goals
- Long term
- The power dynamic within the family would still not be fixed
- Short term
- Pros
Step 5&6: The best course of action
The best course of action is solution 1, to an extent. I think part of the compensation should still be the salary it is, to appease the men to a certain extent and still give them a sense of control. Based on my experience, it would be too dramatic of a change to completely change the form in which the women were compensated. However, with part of the compensation in goods the women are able to provide for their families in a way that achieves both their and the Coop’s goals.
Step 7: List the sequence of actions you will take to implement your solution.
- The Coop would determine a reasonable split of monetary compensation and goods.
- The Coop would determine which goods are valuable for the women.
- The Coop would purchase those goods and distribute accordingly.