Group: Kendall Prime, Conner Calzone, and Gabby Alves

Ethical Decision-Making Methodology 

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

• • 35% of the children are stunted due to poor nutrition
  • Maize and bananas are the items most commonly made into a gruel and fed to infants beginning at ~2 months of age to 24 months of age
  • Mothers believe that the gruel is good for kids, but science says it lacks some key nutrients
  • High rate of HIV in mothers create risk of child getting HIV during prolonged breastfeeding
    • WHO recommends exclusive breastfeeding until an infant is 6 months of age
    • This increases the risk of the children having the HIV transmitted to them
    • They aren’t able to identify who has HIV and who doesn’t
  • We received a grant to help combat the poor nutrition of children in the area 
    • has sufficient funds for the women’s group to process and market a nutritious, shelf-stable porridge made from a large mix of locally grown produce
  • Nutritious porridge is supposed to wean children off of breast milk at 6 months of age
  • The foods used to make the porridge contain pesticides that can affect the health of infants
  • We need to figure out how to develop the cooperative
  • Women are skeptical because the porridge is something they haven’t used before (new product) 

 

• Ethical issue: We are choosing whether to potentially infect the children with HIV and/or run the risk of being nutritiously deficient with the gruel versus a better nutrition but potentially adverse health side effects from the pesticides that may be in the porridge, which is also a product that is not a cultural norm.  

 

 

Step 2 & 3: Define the Stakeholders and assess their motivations (personal and professional)

 

• Me (Grant Recipient): 
  • Professional: Wants a successful and sustainable venture to be achieved to boost credibility and improve reputation in the field (good publicity).  Want to earn money from grant
  • Personal: To improve the nutrition of children and the livelihood of households.  
• Donor : 
  • Professional: Gives the donor a good reputation of trying to do something impactful
  • Personal: The donor’s intent is to simultaneously improve the nutritional status of children and improve the livelihoods of rural households
• Women in the Cooperative: 
  • Professional: women’s group to process and market a nutritious, shelf-stable porridge made from a large mix of locally grown produce 
  • Personal: Want to improve the overall quality of life for their communities children and mothers
• Mothers: 
  • Professional: Work opportunities 
  • Personal: healthy children and and improve their livelihoods, 
• Infants: 
  • Professional: Probably don’t have any professional yet…
  • Personal: The children need to be given the proper nutrients from a young age while limiting their risk of contracting HIV.  Want to also prevent health effects from pesticides. 
• Farmers: 
  • Professional: Can make more money from selling produce to make the porridge 
  • Personal: Helping out the health and livelihood of mothers and children in the local communities

 

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

 

1. Part of Porridge production is having women in cooperative farm crops without pesticides

 

1. 1. Pros: 
      1. The women can make money from growing their own vegetables 
      2. The food they feed their children will be more nutritious 
      3. There won’t be any pesticides in the food or there will be significantly less depending on if the women can completely supplant the other cash crops 
      4. Preventing the children’s chances of getting HIV
      5. Less expensive to fund the production of food if the women are providing the crops
      6. The women will not need to breast-feed as much, reducing the chance of HIV being transmitted being transferred to the babies
   2. Cons: 
      1. There might be more inconsistency with crops
      2. The crops are more susceptible to infestation and can go bad
      3. There might not be enough women to farm to help grow crops 
   3. Ethical Principle: The women are still feeding their children with nutritious food that will help their children reduce the chances of getting HIV and being affected by the impacts of pesticide consumption.

 

1. Use market power to pressure farmers to stop using pesticides by advertising certified pesticide free porridge

 

1. 1. Pros: 
      1. No more pesticides which are unhealthy for the infants and may cause further growth stunting
      2. This creates long term change around farm culture and pesticide use, making vegetables safer for the entire community
      3. Empowers women in our cooperative by showing the power of cooperative, making more women interested in joining
      4. The women will not need to breast-feed as much, reducing the chance of HIV being transmitted being transferred to the babies
   2. Cons:
      1. Might not work (cannot predict reaction)
      2. Farmers may lose sales due to this shift in technique
      3. Farmers might lie about pesticide usage for the sake of selling crops
      4. This is more of a long term movement, and does not satisfy immediate need for pesticide-free vegetables
   3. Ethical Principle: This is duty based thinking because it is our duty to deliver safe nutrition to the children of the mothers in our cooperative.

 

1. Create a gruel product that has additive nutrient supplements with the key nutrients the current recipe is lacking. We can create this gruel in place of the porridge, but still keep operations running.

 

1. 1. Pros:
      1. Already a loved product by the community, so there is no need to convince the community to feed it to their kids
      2. Nutritional supplements can be easily added to any food and does not have any flavor
      3. The kids will finally have the nutrients that the original gruel was lacking
      4. Mothers won’t have to buy separate ingredients for the gruel; it will be premade with the added nutrients
      5. The women will not need to breast-feed as much, reducing the chance of HIV being transmitted being transferred to the babies
   2. Cons:
      1. Similarly, the villagers may be skeptical of these premade products
      2. Mothers may want to just keep making gruel on their own instead of buying one that’s premade
      3. Depending on the grant funding, there might be an issue with buying the vitamin supplements if they are expensive (typically inexpensive, though, but since we don’t know the amount of the grant, there’s no way to know for sure)
   3. Ethical Principle: The gruel with the added nutrition won’t included added pesticides that are bad for the children and will help bring added nutrition to their diet and lowering the risk of getting HIV from the mother

 

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

• Peers: The malnutrition team has discussed adding supplements to some of their recipes to make them more nutrient rich
• Inner reflection: the risk of HIV is in my opinion, worse than the risk of lacking some nutrients

 

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.

 

• I think the solution 3, creating a gruel that just has added vitamin nutrients to it, because it allows for the children to still get the nutrients they need without being exposed to potentially harmful pesticides and reducing their risk of getting HIV from breastfeeding from the mothers.  It also helps make the gruel more appealing to the mothers since they want to feel comfortable using a product they are familiar with.
  • For me as the grant recipient it will help me achieve my goal of providing proper nutrition to the children and improving the overall quality of life through the women’s cooperative.  It will give me good credibility and make a good impression on the donor who issued the grant
  • For the donor this will look extremely well for the donor and give them good publicity along with achieving their goal of improving the nutrition of children and they’ll know that their grant was put to good use.
  • For the women in the cooperative, it will help them achieve their goal of improving the children’s nutrition without giving them pesticides and they can help make the women feeding their children feel more comfortable about using the gruel since it is the same product they’ve been using before
  • For the mothers this solution would make them more comfortable with trying the gruel for their children and will still be giving their kids the nutrition they need with out compromising their health to HIV or pesticides
  • For the infants, they will be getting the nutrition they need without being exposed to pesticides and reducing their risks of HIV
  • For the farmers, this is probably not the best solution for them because then they won’t be selling as many crops to the cooperative to make the gruel since it won’t consist of the cash crops.  However, if they switched their crops to what is used to make the gruel then they can still make money off of the cooperative while contributing to benefitting the health of the children.
• I chose alternative 3 in place of alternative 1 mainly because the women are hesitant to give their children the porridge. Even if it is made without pesticides, the women purchasing the porridge may not believe this. They would have to try something new and different to what they are currently using, which is the main reason the mothers are hesitant to switch from gruel to porridge. Also, alternative 1 does not change the taste of the current food product that is being given to the children; it simply adds to the nutritional value. 
• I chose alternative 3 in place of alternative 2 because there is no guarantee that using market power will effectively pressure the farmers to not use the pesticides. Even if it does, the lack of pesticides does not change the fact that it’s a new product that the mothers don’t want to try. Alternative 3 allows us to keep the gruel, but just fortify it. 
• One of the downsides to alternative 1 is that the mothers may be hesitant to purchase premade gruel. They may prefer to make it on their own. This is something that cannot be predicted until put in this scenario. A possible solution to this hypothetical situation is to have the women in the cooperative all watch the making of this nutrient-fortified gruel and see for themselves that it’s extremely similar to the current gruel. Once they see it’s essentially the same, they will be inclined to use it on their own children, and tell others about it. Word of mouth is one of the most effective ways to advertise in African countries, so having the 500 women in the cooperative vouching for the premade gruel would help convince other mothers.

 

Step 7: (If applicable) What are the implications of your solution on the venture?

 

•  Economic:
  • Money would be coming in due to the sales of gruel
  • Provides business to vitamin supplement companies that we would be purchasing the vitamin nutrient supplements from
  • It will allow for improvement in overall quality of life and that tends to lead to more economic productivity.
  • The sales will hopefully provide more income for the women in the cooperative that will help out their families economically
• Social:
  • Less work for the mothers since the gruel is already premade
  • Children will receive the nutrients they need
  • Mothers don’t need to change what they are currently doing, so there is no expected cultural change
  • Overall quality of life will be improved by improvement of health of children
• Technology
  • The gruel recipe is being slightly altered, but will still be used to feed the children so reduce the risk of HIV
• Environment
  • There would be the affects of having to import all the nutrient supplements into the country which requires lots of packaging and travel to get the supplements to the cooperative

 

Grassroots Diplomacy Strategy Development Methodology 

Step 1: Determine the facts in the situation – obtain all of the unbiased facts possible 

 

• The women work for about nine hours every day and earn KES 300 (about $3)

 

• They have the opportunity to sell the produce grown on their small farms to the cooperative.
• The women like this arrangement because it saves them a trip (time + money) to the village market to sell their produce. 
• When a woman brings her hard earned money home, she has no choice but to turn it over to her husband, father, or brothers.
• The men do not use this money on their family, and spend it on frivolous things such as alcohol
• Social outcomes of the venture are not being achieved (improve women’s livelihood)
• I am one of seven members on the oversight committee this year and I have 6 months left of my position
• The other six members on the committee are also women and want things to change
• Women are convinced that this is the way things are and don’t see this as an issue that their money is being taken but:
  • They are upset their hard earning money is not used to feed the children

 

Step 2 & 3: Define the problem and the stakeholders, and their personal and professional motivations – 

• Me (the entrepreneur): 
  • Personal: Want the women to be happy and for their money to spent on their children, not frivolous things
  • Professional: Want to improve the venture so the women aren’t upset
• Women in the cooperative:
  • Personal: Want their husbands to stop spending money on frivolous things, want to spend their money on their children and other necessities
  • Professional: Want to get through each day on the job, they are enjoying their current jobs and want to keep them
• Oversight committee: 
  • Personal: They also want their children to be fed nutritious food and to prevent their husbands from overspending on alcohol or their friends families from being subject to alcoholism 
  • Professional: Some may want to get reelected, some 
• Families (including husbands)
  • Personal: They want their families to improve their overall quality of life by reducing how much the husbands are drinking and spending on alcohol and the husbands would benefit physically and mentally from reducing their alcohol consumption to be more productive for the rest of their family members
  • Professional: The women in the families want to continue working in the cooperative and would want to see more of their money invested into benefitting the family.  The husbands could have more opportunities to work if they are spending less time drinking and being unproductive due to alcohol consumption,

 

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

 

1. Cooperative acts as an equity bank for the workers so that they can cash out directly, or through other products (family needs) and establish a general store that takes workers credit/acts as a bank. This store is open to the public and cooperative has another stream of income. The store offers beer for credit but quota is 2 six packs a week. Caveat AND incentive for saving: you can only take out one third of your savings at once (unless reason for emergency)
   1. Pros:
      1. Incentivizes men to not take money because they get more if they wait
      2. Creates a long term savings plan for women’s livelihood
      3. By offering beer for credit but establishing a quota, the men are still satisfied and get their beer, but don’t overspend on it. This way, there is money left to be spent on necessities in the home
   2. Cons:  
      1. Women aren’t receiving all their money are once so it might be harder for them to trust the process of splitting their income up into thirds
   3. Saving face: 
      1. Me: This helps give a solution that caters towards the women on the committee while also benefiting women that are working in the cooperative
      2. Women in Cooperative: This helps the women keep some of their money without having their husbands waste it on alcohol.  It allows them to not have to hide the money from the husbands and feel like their money is being protected from not being in a bank.
      3. Oversight Committee:  
      4. Families: This benefits families so that they can utilize the money being made by the women in smarter way and improve the overall quality of life for the family
   4. Relationship short-term implications: 
      1. Me:
         1. I am at first nervous to pitch this idea to the committee because I’m worried about how they may react. Once the committee approves, I will tell the other women in the cooperative about the decision – I’m assuming the women will like the idea but the men will be hesitant, so there may be a slight awkwardness in the beginning.
      2. Women in Cooperative:
         1. The women in the cooperative are happy because their money will be going towards their kids more. They are happy with me and the oversight committee for making this decision.
      3. Oversight Committee:
         1. The oversight committee also wants things to change, so my relationship with them is still great. They are excited that things are going to be different, especially because they thought they couldn’t do anything about it.
      4. Families:
         1. The families may feel some tension amongst themselves since the men won’t be able to spend their money frivolously anymore and will be upset about it.
   5. Relationship long-term implications:
      1. Me:
         1. Hopefully this establishes a better relationship between the women in the cooperative and myself because they see that I am trying to help them improve their home life without directly influencing anything at their homes or taking extreme action
      2. Women in Cooperative:
         1.  The women in the cooperative will have better at home relationships with their husbands with the reduction of alcohol consumption 
      3. Oversight Committee:
         1.  The committee will still have good relationships with myself when seeing the benefits that families are seeing as the women build equity and have their husbands reducing their alcohol consumption
      4. Families:
         1. Relationships within families will improve since the father’s/ husbands won’t be consuming excessive amounts of alcohol anymore and will can be more productive and involved in the family.
   6. Venture short-term implications:
      1. Me:
         1. Will need to try and find a way to advertise the general store so that more people will come and it will end up being sustainable in the long run
      2. Women in Cooperative:
         1. They might feel like they aren’t getting enough money since they can only take so much of their income out and it might not be enough initially to live on.  They will also have to deal with the backlash from husbands if they start to experience withdrawal symptoms .
      3. Oversight Committee:
         1. The women on the committee might think that the idea was bad if the women in the cooperative are suffering from their husbands being angry about not having as much alcohol and might have second thoughts or try to give more money to the women working so the husbands can continue to drink
      4. Families:
         1. Families might suffer from the husbands being mad about no more alcohol.
   7. Venture long-term implications:
      1. Me:
         1. I will help improve the quality of life for the women in the cooperative because I am helping them save money and reducing their husbands alcohol consumption.  The general store will also provide more income for the cooperative making it even more sustainable.  The cooperative will also benefit from having people retain equity in it.
      2. Women in Cooperative:
         1.  The women in the cooperative will have more money to spend because they can keep it in the cooperative.  They will still be able to provide for their families and have more control over how much their husband drinks.  They will also be able to build up equity in the cooperative so that they have more assets in the long run.
      3. Oversight Committee:
         1. They will feel like they are helping the women in the cooperative improve the overall quality of life for their families.  They will also have the benefit of knowing they were the ones that contributed to helping out the community families
      4. Families:
         1. Husbands with the reduced consumption of alcohol can become more-productive in society and potentially work within the cooperative.  Women will be able to save more of their money and have more assets that will improve their economic status and make sure that they can continue to live a sustainable life.

 

Other ideas mentioned in class were an incentive for women to save up enough money in the cooperative to eventually get some type of reward or prize.  So the more the save the better chance they will have of getting whatever type of gift is being given away.  This solution is valid, but it still runs the risk of the husband gaining control of the money and taking it for alcohol anyways.

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

 

1. Validate my idea with the council
2. Validate my idea with 25 men and 25 women one on one
3. After my idea is validated, I will announce the new system and get general feedback at a community meeting to directly engage community voice
4. Higher trustworthy people to keep track of the money and equity each woman has in the cooperative
5. Need to find someone to provide money to initially invest in the build up of the general store
6. Start the general store by finding a location and building or begin building the infrastructure
7. Need to higher people to work in the general store
8. Search for companies to provide product in the general store
9. Use women in the cooperative to market the general store and cooperative to get more business and publicity
10. Take surveys of the women over time to see how their family life has improved and how their husbands alcohol consumption habits have been to assess the success of the solution