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

Facts:

• High street crime that is not addressed by current social infrastructure
• Successful venture that supports and transforms much of the at-risk youth through a professional and social camp contextualized with soccer
• Capacity increased largely and received great funding from various organizations and donors
• Spikey, a major company, transformed the venture with money but also turned it into a more competitive, sports-based initiative rather than a professional and social building program

Part1:

• Spikey is employing children under two of the manufacturers in Cambodia that are going against the values of SYE-T. One of the manufacturers follows proper child labor regulations.
• The improper contracts to children through the manufacturers go against the motto of the Soccer foundation. 
• Spikey is hiding the child labor issues and wants to give more sponsorship to the program. 
• Ugochi is concerned about the conflicting actions and also the loss of emphasis on personal development

Part 2:

• Mikey, the head of Corporate Social Responsibility denies issues of child labor in Cambodia
• Mikey proposes a new focus for the SYE-T. 
• Mikey wants to change the program’s audience to adult men and eliminate women, besides the potential for women to be cheerleaders. 
• Ugochi does not like the new suggestions Mikey makes.
• Mikey threatens to remove all support from the program. 
• Ugochi is concerned about losing support from Spikey since it funds 80% of its program, which would result in a huge loss of participants, programs, etc. 

 

Ethical Issue: Accept or reject the sponsorship of Spikey while ensuring that the moral pillars and initiatives of the venture are maintained (largely the community, leadership, professional development, etc. over the competitive aspect) and reaching the largest quantity of people in an impactful manner.

 

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

• Ugochi Wilson
• Mr. Mikey & Spikey
• Vulnerable youth in US
• Children in Cambodia 
• The 20% other funders
• Local Businesses

 

Step 3: Assess the motivations of the Stakeholders

• Ugochi Wilson: founder of SYE-T, concerned about labor practices at Spikey and their vision for the SYE-T but may lose them as a sponsor
• Mr. Mikey & Spikey: Want to continue to partner with SYE-T so that they will gain publicity, and increase their sales, positive look for the company
• Vulnerable youth: Want the program to continue so they can participate in the soccer tournament and professional development events
• Children in Cambodia – Work in factory producing Spikey’s shoes and are at risk of unemployment
• The 20% other funders – Want to support the program, and have their money go to a good cause, good face
• Local Businesses – pipeline for hiring people, also looks great for the companies in being supporters of people in such situations

 

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

Part 1: 

Blackmail Spikey by threatening to expose their malpractices and force the company to change their manufacturing overseas.

• Pros:
  • Ugochi advocates for social justice and just child labor laws. 
  • Making a difference in offshoring practices. 
  • Driving your initial motivation to completion within a multibillion dollar company
• Cons:
  • Could be a lost cause fighting with a multi-billion dollar company, which has funding for lawyers and support.
  • There is a high probability that Spike will withdraw their sponsorship after such a dispute.
  • The smaller SEY-T has less of a name for support than Spikey. 
• Ethical Principle: Justice  

 

Accept the funding but add your own strings with Spikey. If they want the publicity as a sponsor or donor, they should change their practices instead of hiding it and the program should shift back towards professional development. Mention tax write offs perhaps.

• Pros:
  • As the implementing partner, you are expressing your voice in the program, ensuring that you have a higher say in the implementation of the initiatives. 
  • Put Spikey in their place as a donor, not an owner. 
  • Still receive funding. 
  • If Spikey withdraws money then they look inconsiderate and bad for withdrawing from supporting a good cause. (but not taking the money doesn’t benefit anyone so why wouldn’t you)
• Cons:
  • Tricky and must avoid the legal blunders.
  • If this doesn’t work, may lose lots of funding. However, the return to professional development will definitely occur after the initiative downsizing
• Ethical Principle: Justice, Beneficence, complete clarity to consumers, realignment of ethical motives (drop crime rates and offer supportive programs to children and young adults)

 

End the contract with Spikey, and look for other sources of funding.

• Pros:
  • The program will not be associated with unfair labor laws
  • Will put more of a focus on community support and engagement again
• Cons:
  • Likely will not be able to find as much funding from another source or it will take a very long time
  • Many companies will have some ethically questionable practices, so they might not even be able to find a different fully ethical company to replace funding
  • May never have the same amount of resources as before. 
• Ethical Principle: Justice

 

Expose Spikey for their unfair labor practices to the media.

• Pros: 
  • Bring light to the Cambodia issue 
  • Make people aware of the poor working conditions
  • May force their hand into improving work conditions
• Cons:
  • Lose the funding.
  • May not make an impact.
  • Spikey may retaliate and it could have a negative impact on your program.
  • If it does make an impact and Spikey ends its child labor, children may not be able to provide for their families and may perpetuate their poverty. 
• Ethical Principle: 
  • Does not support unequal practices

 

Part 2:

Accept Mr. Mikey’s terms and keep Spikey as a sponsor.

• Pros:
  • SYE-T keeps their funding
  • SYE-T most likely continues to grow and have more players (only men though)
• Cons:
  • Ugochi and SYE-T remain complicit to Spikey’s poor labor practices abroad
  • Women are excluded from participating in the program
  • Focus of SYE-T moves from serving vulnerable youth to being a competition between men above the age of 18
  • The program does not maintain its original ideals and falls 
• Ethical Principle: Very unethical towards justice and equal opportunity

 

Don’t accept Mr. Mikey’s terms and lose Spikey as a sponsor in accordance with what you decide is most important at the meeting. Maintain your ethics and motivations regardless of Spikey. Possibly look for alternative funding prior to that as well. 

• Pros:
  • Creates the opportunity to look for more ethical sources of funding
  • The program will no longer be associated with questionable companies
  • More sponsors would likely step in
  • Men and women are able to play
  • Realigned to ethical motives in the first place
• Cons:
  • SYE-T loses 80% of its funding and will have to scale down operations
  • SYE-T would lose lots of publicity, advertising, and outreach
  • SYE-T’s soccer players would possibly lose access to equipment, affecting them greatly
• Ethical Principle: Justice

 

Expose Mr. Mikey and Spikey to mass media while maintaining the original idea of the program

• Pros:
  • Spikey’s reputation damaged even more
  • Possibility of receiving other sponsorships with the publicity with more aligned motives/goals
  • Maintain YOUR ethical pillars and prompt Spikey competitors to step in to fulfill your funding needs
  • More sponsors would likely step in
  • Men and women are able to play
  • Realigned to ethical motives in the first place
• Cons:
  • Spikey has a team of lawyers and you get sued
  • Spikey probably won’t fund the program after that
  • Other companies may not be inclined to sponsor your program after outing a longtime sponsor
  • Other donors may not want to get involved with a company that has an ongoing scandal 
• Ethical Principle: Justice

 

Show the impact of SYE-T to Spikey to maintain their sponsorship and have them accept certain terms because it can help improve their optics after their controversy

• Pros:
  • SYE-T maintains funding while keeping its values/vision
  • Spikey receives good press amid their controversy
  • May convince Spikey to better their labor practices abroad
• Cons:
  • Difficult to convince a multibillion-dollar company like Spikey
• Ethical Principle: Beneficence 

 

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

• Similar nonprofits
• New sources of ethical funding
• Lawyers in case the team gets sued
• Child labor laws in multiple countries
• The Greenhouse Scenario 
• Realignment of overall morals and motivations

 

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 solution in part A and part B is to continue accepting money from Spikey. In part A, if you decline the money you will be losing the majority of the program’s funding and will need to scale back drastically. And by doing this you are not helping the workers in Cambodia at all. Just because you refuse funding from Spikey, it is unlikely that Spikey will end their manufacturing agreements in Cambodia. The net outcome if you do not accept the money will be that the soccer program cannot make as much impact, and the children in Cambodia remain in the same situation. The same goes for the issue in Part B. I would suggest that you set ground rules of things you are not willing to change such as that women will still be allowed to participate in the program, and offer to make both an 18+ and 18 under league. There is a chance that Spikey will not accept these conditions, but in that circumstance you can just scale back the program and rebuild it up with local donors that are more in line with the initiative’s goals. If Spikey does accept the conditions that is great because you then have the capital to make an impact, which is one of the major hurdles in a program like this. The one downside of this plan is that the program will now be associated with Spikeys corrupt morals. I feel like accepting the funding is still worth it because if you do not accept the money then Spikey will just keep it for themselves or donate it somewhere else. The soccer program is aiming to create a positive impact on people’s lives, so they are justified to accept the money. Accepting the money is better than the proposed solution in class to expose Spikey for their wrongdoings. By doing this, Spikey will definitely withdraw their funding. Additionally, it may be more difficult to get other donors because some may be hesitant to get involved with a program that just dealt with such a major scandal. 

 

Step 7: (If applicable) What are the implications of your solution on the venture. Explain the impact of your proposed solution on the venture’s technology, economic, social and environmental aspects.

 

Technology – This project is not technology heavy. Accepting or declining the money will have no impact on technology.

 

Economic – Financially speaking the best thing to do is to accept the money because otherwise the program would lose 80% of their funding. This would drastically affect the growth of the project, causing them to substantially scale down.

 

Social – This solution has some negative social ramifications because they will be associated with a company that supports unfair labor practices, and is not very interested in the social impact side of the project. The flip side of this is that while accepting the money associates you with corrupt practices, you will then have the financial capital available to make more of an impact on the youth of Philadelphia

 

Environmental – The only environmental impact of this solution revolves around the material use and gasses emitted during the professional development soccer programs.

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

Facts 

• Growth of ~35% of the children is stunted due to poor nutrition. This is because the primary dish in their diet only contains maize and bananas. 
• A traditional gruel is made to complement breastfeeding starting at ~2 months until they are ~24 months. 
• HIV/AIDS is prevalent in the area
  • The longer a mother with HIV/AIDS breastfeeds, the greater the chance the virus will get transmitted to the baby. This means that the babies have a high risk of being infected with HIV if they are breastfed for an extended period of time. 
• Women’s cooperative is marketing a new nutritious porridge made from locally grown produce. 
  • Used to wean babies off breast milk when they are 6 months old. This is intended to prevent risks of HIV development in children while providing nutrition. 
• Pesticides are used on all of the crops.
• Genetic modification or impediments as a result of pesticides. 
• HIV tests are not easily accessible but can get access at a cost

 

Ethical Issue

• The women need to breastfeed due to the limited accessibility to nutrients and the expense of food. However, children are threatened by HIV and the unknown yet high rate of its existence and transmission. 
• Men are taking the money the women earn and not using it for the children’s food; It would be difficult and maybe not ethical to try to change a cultural norm.
• The locals are skeptical of the porridge.
• Pesticides are utilized on all crops yet continuously included as dietary supplements for infants.
• The donor wanted to improve rural life at home in addition to nutritional status but was inhibited by social structures and cultural norms where men take money and do whatever.
• Women are upset but they feel as though they can’t do anything about it.

 

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

• Donors who gave the grant
• Children of East Africa
• Mothers
• Fathers
• Farmers 
• Committee Members

 

Step 3: Assess the motivations of the Stakeholders

• Donors who gave the grant: Want to improve nutrition for children in East Africa and limit the spread of HIV, improve the rural family scene.
• Children of East Africa: Need improved nutrition.
• Mothers: Need money to provide for their families, improve the nutrition in their children, and build a strong community.
• Fathers: Receive the money that the women earn
• Farmers: Want to make money by selling more crops for this new porridge and continue using pesticides. 
• Committee Members: Want the program to be successful, and eventually improve nutrition for children

 

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

Part 1:

1. Partner with local farmers not using chemical pesticides to boost their business and provide educational programs surrounding HIV, malnutrition, and pesticide usage for the communities. 
   1. Pros:
      1. Benefit local farmers, and helps them make money
      2. Educates the communities
      3. Champions community engagement with the problems at hand
   2. Cons:
      1. There would be an issue if all the crops died because of not using pesticides 
      2. Prices could rise drastically
   3. Ethical Principle: 
      1. This solution would put farmers who do no use pesticides out of business
      2. This solution also does not address the issue that men are spending the money frivolously 
2. Instead of a new dish, develop a supplement that can be added to the traditional gruel mothers make.
   1. Pros:
      1. Babies can get the nutrients they need
      2. Not changing tradition by trying to replace the gruel with a manufactured porridge
   2. Cons:
      1. Locals may still be skeptical of the supplement
      2. Cost may be an issue as supplements may need additional packaging or manufacturing
   3. Ethical Principle: 
      1. This solution does not interfere with cultural norms
      2. It does not address the issue that women do not like how their husbands are spending their money 
3. Provide HIV/AIDS testing kits for the families
   1. Pros:
      1. Mothers would know for sure if they would be able to breastfeed their baby for a prolonged period
   2. Cons:
      1. Cost and feasibility of distribution
      2. HIV/AIDS diagnoses is a private matter and outsiders should not involve themselves in this
      3. Stigma for HIV/AIDS-positive individuals?
   3. Ethical Principle: 
      1. May cause issues if an individual tests positive because of stigmas

 

Part 2: Needs us to engage the men in some way.

• Partner with local businesses so that instead of receiving only money, the women receive a voucher and salary that can only be used for certain goods and services (or they can choose). 

1. 1. 1. Pros: 
         1. Women retain money.
         2. Local businesses are supported through the program
         3. Children can receive the intended nutritional benefits.
      2. Cons: 
         1. Husbands get mad due to the decreased control of income for their activities. If the husbands find out there is a choice between salary and vouchers they may force the wives to get salary and this would not solve any problems.
         2. Vouchers can’t be used for everything.
         3. Requires large-scale involvement for long-term success 
      3. Ethical Principle: Beneficence, Justice

• Subsidize jobs/recruit for the husbands so they also can earn their own money

1. 1. 1. Pros:
         1. The men get extra money they can spend on frivolous things
         2. The women have a greater likelihood of being able to keep their money
      2. Cons:
         1. May be viewed negatively by the husbands
         2. They may also still want to keep their wives money
      3. Ethical Principle: Beneficence

• Introduce requirements for this cooperative job: such as children attending schools, visiting health clinics, and passing malnutrition tests.

1. 1. 1. Pros:
         1. This hopefully ensures that the children have a better life and nutrition
      2. Cons:
         1. Very stringent requirements for employment. The women may feel discouraged from working there or the men may pressure the women to quit.
         2. May be difficult to enact if the children do not have stable home lives
      3. Ethical Principle: Autonomy 

• Pay the women their salary in a larger sum every other week or every month, provide discounts and porridge samples for daily compensation

1. 1. Pros:
      1.  Involvement on all fronts, directly attacking the malnutrition problem, incentivizes budgeting, purchasing for the good of the family, education
      2. improves child nutrition directly
   2. Cons: 
      1. Does not address the cultural norms surrounding patriarchal money management, largely circumvents the board of directors taking any major actions
   3. Ethical Principle: Autonomy, Beneficence, Justice, Equality

 

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

Some additional concepts and constructs to consider in evaluating the ethicality of this cooperative in the first place:

• Partner with farmers using limited pesticide treatments to incentivize less pesticide usage or safer practices (takes long, monetarily painful)  
• Looser IP laws for other local markets to try and develop their own super porridges
• Invest in educational opportunities for HIV, pesticides, malnutrition
  • Partner with a health clinic due to its relevance to health. 

• Local government
• Local bank
• Donors of the grant

 

• Engineering code of ethics recommends little deception or conflict of interest.
• Previous cases have seen economic disruptions (Quinoa) where items become so popular they increase in price and become unaffordable for local populations
• Must respect some culture but social entrepreneurship’s success often requires some form of social pushing or micro-disruptions to see progress

 

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 approach is the one where women are paid their weekly wages, but are also offered highly discounted porridge and some free samples. This way the family will still receive money, if they do also have non-food related expenses, but they still have the option of a less expensive porridge. It may be easier for wives to convince their husbands to purchase the porridge if it is heavily discounted. Additionally, this also addresses the issue of malnutrition in the area. The children’s nutrition will improve if they have access to this porridge. This solution also does not need to change any cultural norms. Local farmers will benefit as they are able to sell more of their crops to make the porridge. The major issue with this solution is that the program will lose some profits if they are giving away samples or selling the porridge at a discounted rate. I would recommend that the cooperation budget some of their grant money to cover this. If they are not able to then the women’s weekly wage could be lowered to make up for the porridge they are given. This is more effective than the proposed solution to hold workshops or events where wives invite their husbands to learn about the work they are doing in hopes that the husbands will respect it more. Although they may start to value their wives’ work more, it would take a lot more than a workshop to change long standing cultural norms. 

 

Step 7: (If applicable) What are the implications of your solution on the venture. Explain the impact of your proposed solution on the venture’s technology, economic, social and environmental aspects.

 

Technology – The only technology that this solution requires is the equipment needed to make the porridge.

 

Economics – This solution gives the women more control over how the money they earn is spent, and increases the likelihood that their children will get nutritious porridge.

 

Social – This solution tackles the issue of malnutrition by making the nutrient dense porridge more available to the children. The solution also achieves this in a way that does not disturb cultural norms.

 

Environmental – This solution supports farmers who do not use pesticides, which are bad for the environment. 

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

Facts:

• A donator grants a $5000 grant, and offers a $100,000 follow-up gift
• Trying to make Lehigh sustainable by 2030
• Want to use the money to by advertising shirts
• You can get a $2 shirt from a factory in Cambodia that pays employees above local wages, a $10 shirt from a factory in LA that exploits its workers, or a $25 shirt from Lehigh Valley that is made organically 
• The donator wants the shirts to be purchased from the US 

Ethical Issues:

• Need to consider what the workers should be paid for making the T-shirts
• What impact that company has on the environment (How sustainable they are)
• Working conditions at the garment factories
• How are the shirts transported to the US and how much emissions does that produce
• Big part of the decision is to keep the donator happy because they mentioned giving more money

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

• T-shirt manufacturer
• Alumni who made donation
• Student groups 
• Rest of student body
• Lehigh administration

Step 3: Assess the motivations of the Stakeholders

• T-shirt manufacturer – wants to sell shirts and make money
• Alumni who made donation – their donation is going towards the shirts and they value made in the USA and sustainable products
• Student groups – want the project to be successful to create a more sustainable campus
• Rest of student body – will have to adopt the changes made by this program
• Lehigh administration – want to make the best decision for the future of Lehigh

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

1. Buy the $25 organic shirts, but only buy a few and make it a give away or some type of raffle

• Ethical Principle or code
  • Since the movement is supporting sustainability, it is not being hypocritical by purchasing fast fashion shirts
  • The donator is kept happy
• Pros
  • Uses sustainably made shirts  
  • Uses locally made shirts to keep donator happy
  • Workers are treated fairly and paid well
  • A raffle would be fun and bring attention to the program
  • Do not need to buy that many shirts for a raffle
• Cons
  • More expensive shirt, so you cannot buy as many
  • People may lose interest in the program if they just enter a raffle, and do not win anything

2. Ask donator how they would feel about purchasing less expensive shirts from Cambodia (how important is it to them that the shirts are made in the United States)

• Ethical Principle or code
  • Gives the donator the opportunity to share their input on how they hope the money is spent
  • Will be able to buy more shirts and spread awareness because of the inexpensive price, but it is supporting fast fashion
• Pros
  • Is direct in figuring out what the donator’s expectations are
  • Many shirts will be distributed, so more people will learn about what the initiative is trying to accomplish and maybe recruit more members or donators
  • Those making the shirts are paid a fair wage
• Cons
  • The donator may not be happy with the idea of purchasing the shirts from outside of the US
  • Promoting the sustainability initiative with fast fashion and over consumption
  • Transporting the shirts to the US will produce more pollution 

3. Do not buy shirts at all, and just use the money for advancing logistical aspects of the sustainability initiative 

• Ethical Principle or code
  • This is not what the donator intended to be done with their money
  • Produces the least amount of waste, which most supports the core principles of the initiative
• Pros
  • Will have most direct impact on creating a more sustainable campus
  • Does not support fast fashion or creating excess waste
  • There are other ways to advertise the initiative without shirts
• Cons
  • The alumni donated money with the specific intention to allow them to buy shirts
  • Alumni may not donate the follow-up $100,000 if their original donation was not used how they wanted
  • Students may be less interested in the initiative if they do not receive a shirt

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

• Principles of bioethics, engineering ethical codes
• Other alumni for donations
• Various local and national grants
• Lehigh administration and sustainability offices 

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 solution is the first one where only a few of the $25 organic shirts are bought, and given away at a raffle type event. This is the most ethical solution because the shirts are made in a way that limits environmental damage. Additionally, the workers are paid a fair wage. It does not make sense to buy many shirts when many will likely just get thrown out, since the program is advocating sustainability. It would be hypocritical to spread awareness about environmental protection while supporting fast fashion. This solution also keeps the donator happy by using their money to purchase locally sourced shirts, making it more likely that they will also grant the follow-up donation. The program will be able to achieve so much more if they receive the $100,000 grant. The main issue with this solution is that if students do not win the shirt in the raffle, then they may lose interest after. To prevent this, the raffle event could have other activities, such as learning how to make your own shirt out of recycled materials. This way the students would have a fun memory associated with the program. This solution is more engaging than the one proposed in class to buy one shirt and let students sign it. Students may not care about signing a shirt for a program they know nothing about, and will be less likely to remember the program if they do not leave with a shirt. 

Step 7: (If applicable) What are the implications of your solution on the venture. Explain the impact of your proposed solution on the venture’s technology, economic, social and environmental aspects.

Technology – This solution will not use much technology, unless there is some equipment needed to make your own shirt.

Economics – This shirt is the most expensive, so they can not buy as many. This is worth it because the shirts are made in an environmentally friendly way and the workers are paid a fair wage. This solution also provides the best chance that the alumni will give the follow-up donation.

Social – This solution will raise awareness about the sustainability initiative in a fun way with the raffle and making your own shirts out of recycled materials.

Environmental – This solution uses the shirts that are made out of organic materials that have the least impact on the environment. Additionally, there will be no extra pollution created to transport the shirts to the United States.

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

Facts: 

• Jack is American and works in Kenya. 
• Jack works with children. 
• A staff member at the youth center picked up all the gifts. 
• Four kids did not receive a gift.
• The youth center staff members do not see a problem with the situation
• Jack feels awkward about the situation
• Kids who did not receive a present were given a hat
• Jack may or may not have disposable income

Issue:

• Jack is an outsider, so he may not feel right to get too involved 
• The youth center may get upset if they feel like Jack is undermining their authority or making them look bad if he then buys the kids presents
• Children were left out causing them to potentially feel ostracized 
• Creates tension between the children at the center

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

• Jack
• Children at youth center who did not receive a gift
• Youth center staff

Step 3: Assess the motivations of the Stakeholders

• Jack thinks that there is a problem: the four children didn’t receive gifts. Jack has the motivation to fix the problem or mend it in some way to ensure there is no issue with how he had acted.
• Children who did not receive a gift. They do not have the motivation to fix the problem but they may be struggling with feeling left out or not appreciated.
• Children who received a gift: may feel bad for the kids who did not receive gifts if they are friends
• The youth center staff are in charge of distributing the gifts: They have the motivation from paying parents to keep the kids happy but it seems as though they are disregarding this motivation

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

1. Hold another ceremony for the four kids who did not receive gifts originally and they receive cooler gifts for being so patient.
   1. Ethical Principle: the children feel happy and not left out anymore. 
   2. Pro: The children do not feel left out anymore.
   3. Con: The other children may feel worse because they ended up receiving worse gifts than those four children and may not feel as special, Jack will have to pay for the gifts
2. Apologize sincerely to the children for not having a gift for them. 
   1. Ethical Principle: It is not clear if children will accept this apology and move on or if they will continue to be upset that they did not receive a gift
   2. Pro: Children will know that it was nothing that they did, and was just because they ran out of gifts
   3. Con: the children are still upset because they did not receive a gift.
3. Take all of the gifts back, get gifts for everyone, and do the ceremony again.
   1. Ethical Principle: Keeping the outliers from being made fun of or bullied due to not having a gift. Having all the kids have equal privilege.
   2. Pro: Everyone (along with the kids that don’t get the gifts) feels “special” and receives gifts.
   3. Con: some of the other kids might complain about having their gifts taken away, the staff of the children’s center would have to redo the ceremony, the kids who have their gifts taken may blame it on the kids who did not receive present at first
4. Jack wears a black hat to school the next day and compliments all of the kids who wear their hat/encourage them to wear it
   1. Ethical Principle: Helps the kids who did not receive hats feel included because they are praised for wearing the hat, will not feel forgotten
   2. Pros: Solution does not cost money because no new gifts are bought, the kids who did not receive a gift will feel included now, does not put jacks reputation with his coworkers at risk 
   3. Cons: Kids who did not receive the hat may feel left out now that jack is saying it is cool to wear the hat, Kids may care more about just getting a cool gift than feeling included

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

 

• Funding sources to purchase more gifts
• Donors for the youth center
• School psychologist to understand how this would affect the children
• Children’s parents to get their input 

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 solution is where Jack wears a black hat to school to help the children feel included who did not receive a gift. He may need to buy a black hat if he does not have one already, but this is a lot less expensive than if he were to buy all the children gifts again. He would then compliment all the kids who wore it, and encourage those who are not wearing it to put their hat on. Assuming that Jack has a good reputation amongst the children, then his approval will help to make the kids who did not receive a gift feel more included. One issue with this plan would be if the children do not look up to Jack. In this case, him wearing the hat would not mean anything. But still if he compliments the children who are wearing the hat, it is inevitable that this will make them feel at least a little bit appreciated just because they are kind words. In the long run this will also teach the children to make the best of whatever situation they are given. If the children acted upset and then got a whole new ceremony to receive gifts, that might reinforce the idea that if they act upset then they will get their way. The proposed solution is a more subtle way of making sure that the children do not feel left out, while also not rewarding bad behavior. An additional long-term benefit of this approach is that it saves Jack’s reputation with his coworkers. They will not care if he just wears a black hat to school, and compliments the kids who are wearing it. On the other hand, if Jack were to go out and buy the kids new cooler gifts the other employees may feel that Jack overstepped. This solution provides a balance of saving Jack’s reputation with the children and his co-workers. 

Step 7: (If applicable) What are the implications of your solution on the venture. Explain the impact of your proposed solution on the venture’s technology, economic, social and environmental aspects.

Technology: There is no technology involved with this solution.

Economics: The proposed solution will cost less compared to others because the only expense is a hat. The other solutions involved purchasing many new gifts or even the production of an entire ceremony.

Social: This solution helps the kids who only received a hat to feel more included, and not like an outsider. It also does not jeopardize Jack’s relationship with his coworkers. The other co-workers may feel like it makes them look bad if Jack buys all of the kids gifts. 

Environmental: This solution is more environmentally friendly because Jack only needs to buy one hat, as opposed to if he bought all the kids new gifts and put on a ceremony. This would create a lot more waste.  

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

Facts:

• The research group is traveling throughout Lesotho to determine locations and methods for storing water
• Researching a specific pathogen that is only found in this region in Lesotho
• Several publications will be published
• Will not pay participants who show their drinking water

Issue:

• • Not reimbursing community members for their time
  • No game plan for improvement of life quality in Lesotho (how will this benefit people)
  • Since the researchers are only there for 10 days, they would be unable to determine the long-term effects of the pathogen
  • The water conditions may change each season
  • Will you bring more and more researchers into this community in the future? How does this impact their community in terms of environment, culture, expectations…
  • Not paying community members leaves a bad reputation for future research teams coming in
  • Is this water problem the root problem or is it caused by something else? Will they find out and treat the root problem?
  • How accessible would these chemicals be? If they are free how are we sustaining production of this project? Will they be manufactured locally = creating more employment for community members?

• • Do the citizens of Lesotho understand the health severity of the exposure to these pathogens?

• • Are recommendations being provided to the people of Lesotho to combat the pathogen (boiling, gravity filtration)? What do they do in the meantime?

We have concluded that this study is not ethical on the basis that there is not enough of a plan for the research and its intended outcomes and benefits for the community. It is not justifiable to intervene in the village’s life, without having a more set idea of the information the researchers hope to obtain and how it will end up benefiting the community. 

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

• The public 
• Any current water treatment facilities 
• The Government of Lesotho (More specifically water/health-related ministries)
• Academic institutions, bio specific (new strain, new data, sequencing, and biological interaction with other living things)
• Diseases advocacy groups 
• Government of South Africa 
• NSF & NIH

Step 3: Assess the motivations of the Stakeholders

• The public – may be given better access to clean drinking water
• Any current Water Treatment Facilities – If a solution is found to limit pathogens in water then these facilities will want to produce clean drinking water in Lesotho
• Gov of Lesotho: want solution for water problems, raising awareness for other problems of their country (poverty, other pollutants), getting re-elected (by improving quality of living)
• Academic Institutions: Will be interested in the new information uncovered about the pathogen
• Diseases advocacy groups: Interested in raising quality of life
• Government of South Africa: Watershed of Lesotho impacts regions of South Africa as well — they have been buying Lesotho water
• NSF & NIH – Founded this research and are interested in improving drinking water quality

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

1. Research the impact of storage conditions on pathogen plus ways to possibly filter and work to make recommendations for storing with the help of a hired local guide
   1. Ethical Principle and code
      1. Guide will be compensated
      2. Clear goal for how researchers will give back to the community
      3. Education involved
   2. Pros
      1. Better understand pathogen
      2. Local guide so will be able to connect with individuals
      3. Specific focus for research
      4. Combines research and education 
   3. Cons
      1. Guide will cost money
      2. Not guaranteed that solution will be found
      3. Need to make filter cost low enough that it will be accessible to everyone
2. Education on proper sanitation methods and hygienic processes
   1. Ethical Principle and code
      1. Must make sure that assistance is wanted
   2. Pros
      1. Community can learn how to help limit the growth of pathogens in the lake with safer sanitary and agricultural practices
      2. Locals will be involved and impacted by the research
   3. Cons
      1. Will not solve problem, only limit its severity
      2. Residents may not be able to implement safer practices if they do not have proper access to resources
3. Import filtered water from South Africa
   1. Ethical Principle and code
      1. This solution does not proportionally advantage everyone
      2. Only those who can afford imported water will be able to buy it
   2. Pros
      1. No research involved so it would save time and money on lab supplies
      2. Increases South Africa’s profits
   3. Cons
      1. Only solves issue for the rich
      2. Not sustainable solution because supplies of imported water is not guaranteed
      3. Extra cost to import water including transportation
      4. Water needs to be stored properly so that it is sanitary 

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

 

• Additional Assistance Available in the Following Sources
  • Principles of bioethics 
  • Engineering ethical codes
  • Previous water quality research that dealt with harmful pathogens
  • Companies that work with water treatment

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 solution my group came up with is to research how storage methods affect the pathogens growth, and possible ways to filter the water while it is being stored. This will be accomplished with a paid local guide that will handle all interactions with community members. The end goal is to implement a storage system that simultaneously protects the water from pathogen growth while also filtering it. The storage method will be introduced to the town. We chose this solution because it best follows the ethical guidelines while also upholding the stakeholders interests of improving quality of life and learning more about the pathogens in water. This solution maximizes gain for everyone because it ends with a clear goal of how clean drinking water will be provided. This will benefit all of the people of Lesotho. It is hoped that the price for the drinking water will not be too expensive because the storage and filtration processes are combined. Therefore it will be available to more of the population. Additionally because of the research required it will provide helpful insights for other research institutions. One path discussed in class did not involve paying those who helped under the reasoning that they were not doing any manual work, just having a conversation. Our solution better handles this because we just pay one guide. This guide then will speak with community members. People will be more open and accepting to talk with someone who they already know and respect. 

Step 7: (If applicable) What are the implications of your solution on the venture. Explain the impact of your proposed solution on the venture’s technology, economic, social and environmental aspects.

• Technology
  • Since this solution is heavily research based, it will require a lot more equipment and resources 
  • Multiple trials of the filtered storage box needed to be run
• Economic
  • More research will cost more money
  • Tour guide adds expenses
• Social
  • Education component of project will benefit the community 
• Environmental 
  • Depending on how large the storage units are, land may need to be cleared
  • Ultimately will lead to less contaminated water