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.