Contributors: Alyssa Blasko, Weilin Pan, Skyler Martinez, Tommy Persaud

Part 1:

The ethical problem: 

• Prolonged breastfeeding with a high prevalence of HIV/AIDS
• Content of gruel can link to pesticide use of cash crops, further risking health of children 
• The mothers are skeptical because they have fed the children with gruel before, they are not familiar with the new recipe
• Current gruel being used is not nutritious enough, according to scientific research

Step 1: Facts of the Situation

• A research team received a grant to establish a women’s cooperative in this region.
• In certain area of East Africa, growth of ~35% of children is stunted due to poor nutrition
• HIV/AIDS is very prevalent in this region
• The gruel used to wean children off breastfeeding is not nutritionally beneficial to infant (banana and maize)
• Cash crops are grown in the three regions that expressed interest in participating
• Pesticides are currently used in cash crops and can be very harmful for infants and children
• 500 women are interested in joining the cooperative 
• Current crops grown in the area: maize, sorghum, cassava, several varieties of legumes (dried beans), French beans, coffee, pineapple, bananas, pumpkins, tomatoes, carrots, kale, white (Irish) potatoes, and sweet potatoes.

Step 2 + 3:  Stakeholders and their motivations

• African children
  • Personal:
    • Have safer food
    • Lowers risk of exposure to HIV/AIDS, improves growth and resilience 
• African mothers
  • Personal:
    • Give their child nutritious food 
    • Ensure the food their child is eating is safe for consumption
    • Excitement to learn and socialize – but their vulnerability may result in wanting you to hear what you want to hear – they do not want to come off as ignorant – they may reinforce your ideas because they think you’re smart and want to agree. On the other hand, some may be weary to trust an outsider so make sure you talk to the right people 
• Farmers
  • Personal: 
    • Make money
  • Professional: 
    • Produce safer foods 
    • Grow business as their crops become essential in porridge (sell more crops)
    • Find an alternative 
• The research team
  • Personal: 
    • Make money, reduce the HIV/AIDS rate, further their career
    • Earn more money to continue doing research and get continuous funding
  • Professional: 
    • Recognition in the research community if collective is successful
    • Building up their own credibility in their research community 
• Local hospital
  • Professional: 
    • Bettering of health of patients and locals
    • Provide safe sex instruments to reduce transmission of HIV/AIDS
    • Make sure hospital isn’t always at capacity – prevent future cases
    • Can devote their resources to something else 
• Doctors & Nurses
  • Personal:
    • Help ensure mother/infants are healthy 
  • Professional:
    • Help reduce transmission of HIV/AIDS by educating locals 
• University/lab/government (Funding agency)
  • Professional: 
    • Treat spread of disease
    • Reputation of gaining academic knowledge
    • Funding agency will have their name attached to the possible solution
    • More advertising – want to be a world leader in the field – want to build up their brand
    • More partners

• African government – Secondary stakeholders
  • Professional:
    • Decrease the countries’ HIV rate
    • Decrease the infant mortality
    • Create a safer living environment for the citizens
    • Make profit

Step 4: Three Alternate Solutions (Solution, Ethical Principle, Pros / Cons for each)

 

• Potential Solution 1: Educate people on the recipe

 

• • • How does it solve the problem? 
      • Pros: There will be less pesticide
      • Cons: hard to find alternative crops with minimal to no use of pesticides in the local area
    • How does it save face of those involved? 
      • Pros: 
        • Can market itself as a more ethical and safe option for families
      • Cons: 
        • Concerns with accessibility and efficiency 
    • Implications on relationships 
      • Short-term: 
        • Strain on relationships with local farmers
      • Long-term: 
        • More solidified trust and assurance among mothers and families as a safer option
    • Implications on the venture 
      • Short-term: 
      • Long-term: 

 

• Potential Solution 2: Pesticide removal treatment 

 

• • • How does it solve the problem? 
      • Pros:
        • Cleans the foods
        • Increases trust with the community which will lead to more women in the cooperative using the porridge 
        • Improves growth and nutrition of the children 
      • Cons: 
        • May not take all the pesticides off
        • May be costly 
        • May not increase trust with the community 
    • How does it save face of those involved? 
      • Many families do not want to use the food with the pesticide and that the porridge is unknown. This option is a better nutritional option compared to the current situation and allows them to keep with cleaner foods 
    • Implications on relationships 
      • Short-term:  
        • May increase trust with trying the new porridge 
      • Long-term: 
        • Could increase reputation in the community as the collective aims to use cleaner ingredients
    • Implications on the venture 
      • Short-term: 
        • Could be a financial burden to purchase all materials as a start up cost
      • Long-term: 
        • Could improve results which may lead to more grant funding 

 

• Potential Solution 3: Using safer pesticides

 

• • How does it solve the problem? 
    • Cash crops can still be grown at the same rate. Adverse health implications might be minimal. 
    • Pros: 
      • Cash crops can still be used
      • Infants can have nutritious food 
      • Mothers have lower risk of HIV/AIDS transmission
    • Cons: 
      • Still using pesticides 
      • Economic barriers with affording better pesticides 
      • May still keep mothers from wanting to use the porridge 
      • Farmers might not want to adopt the use of new pesticide  
      • Farmers cannot afford new pesticides
      • Might not be any safer pesticides for infant consumption
  • How does it save face of those involved? 
    • Keeps the pesticides in the project which eliminates insect issues and continues the growth of crops at a cheaper price while lowering the risk of pesticide exposure. 
  • Implications on relationships 
    • Short-term:
      • • Trust issues with using new porridge
        • Farmers might be offended because they are producing harmful goods 
      • Long-term: 
        • Hopefully an increased use of the porridge
        • Adoption of safer pesticides 
  • Implications on the venture 
    • Short-term: 
      • Pushing forward in a quick manner to keep the venture going
      • Possible issues with grant funding if funders want a pesticide free crop yield 
    • Long-term: 
      • Larger crop yield by using the safer pesticides which adds a higher reputation to the grant and results of the venture 

Step 5: Additional Assistance

• Convincing someone to change their ways can be very difficult, especially when they have been doing something for a long time. This case is reflective of my everyday life with my parents who have habits of using household remedies as solutions for injuries or for medical purposes. They tend to use household remedies instead of actual medication. So when I tried convincing them to use the medicine instead of their remedies it was very difficult to. I ended up showing them some videos from a few pharmacists/doctors  talking about how effective modern day medication is and eventually they came around. I plan to reflect on using such tactics when it comes to tackling this dilemma. 

Step 6: Best Course of Action

• The best course of action would be to invest into finding a pesticide removal treatment. This would be the easiest to implement without disrupting the current cash crops farmers are growing. Since people are already consuming the cash crops, finding a pesticide treatment would be optimal because the farmers can continue growing as needed. The reason why I said this would be the best solution as opposed to solution 3 is because it might be very much possible that there aren’t any safer pesticides so investing in a removal treatment would ensure safe consumption of the cash crops.

Step 7: Implications of Solution

• Economics
  • Farmers can continue growing cash crops 
  • Might cost more to use removal treatment
  • Farmers might have to produce a smaller yield because they can only afford some amount of the removal treatment
• Social
  • More people can have access to safer foods 
  • Mothers can feel assured their kids are getting the proper nutrients
• Environmental
  • Pesticides can still be used as a method of ensuring crops grow safely 
  • Pesticide removal can be harmful to environment 
  • Continues use of pesticides can be environmentally harmful

Part 2:

The ethical problem: 

• Men in families where the women earn money from the cooperatives are taking all of the money for selfish reasons (alcohol and frivolous things)
• Women are not having enough money to spend on their family 
• The livelihoods of these rural households are not improving 

Step 1: Facts of the Situation

• The business with local women is thriving
• 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 enjoy working with each other and are happy with the cooperative; they have a strong sense of community and identity
• Women cannot use the money earned for their families (money goes to the men)

Step 2,3: Stakeholders and their motivations 

• Stakeholders remind the same as part 1, except with the additional of the men in the families
• Men
  • Personal
    • Take and use money for themselves
  • Professional:
    • Potentially gambling of the money to earn more to support their families 

Step 4,5,6: The Optimal Solution

• Optimal Solution: Establish an equity bank at the cooperative that the workers can only take out a third at a time, or send the money at the store created at the cooperative 
  • How does it solve the problem?
    • Women won’t be bringing home physical capital that the men can take.
    • Women can still have some capital to support their families.
    • Pros:
      • Women still have capital for their families
      • Men won’t be taking all of the income the women make immediately
    • Cons:
      • Since only a third can be taken out at a time, the men might still take this for themselves
  • How does it save face of those involved?
    • The cooperative can still function without being seen as a party who allowed the women to work hard for seemingly nothing
    • The women can still give the men some money but not all of the money they earned
  • Implications on relationships
    • Short-Term
      • The men might be against this equity bank
      • The women will like it because they can support their family 
    • Long-Term
      • The men will come around to the equity bank
      • The women will continue to support their families
  • Implications on the venture
    • Short-Term
      • Cooperative will be disliked by the men initially
      • Cooperative might lose some trust in the community 
    • Long-Term
      • The cooperative’s presence will stabilize and continue to be an integral part of the community

Step 7: Step by Step implementation of optimal solutions 

• Establish cooperative 
• Establish equity bank
• Allow women to work
• Allow workers to take out a third at a time
• Allow workers to send the money at the store created at the cooperative