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.