IBM: Making the earth a cleaner place (2008)

Based on a paper by: Robert Daniels
Blog by: Andrew Drawec

International Business Machines (IBM) was founded in 1911, as a company producing and manufacturing weight scales, time clocks, and coffee brewers. The company has evolved over the years to become a multi-billion dollar company manufacturing the latest computer and technological products. In any company, there are many decisions that can be analyzed to see if they are ethical or not.  Throughout the 21^st century there have been calls for companies to become green or to become more environmentally friendly. IBM has decided to go green within their corporation to promote sustainability, and a better ethical standing within the global business community. IBM’s decision to go green will be analyzed by the four major ethical theories, and will show how a company should truly behave environmentally in today’s society. IBM's changes to make the world a better place agrees with all four of the major ethical theories.

In 2008, IBM’s president and chairman of the board, Sam Palmisano introduced the green efforts named “Project Big Green”, which outlined the companies plan to make the earth a cleaner place. Since 2007, IBM has set aside more than 1 billion dollars in funds to continue to invest and research energy saving alternatives in computer technology. Some of the initiatives that the company has outlined were the plans to make the company a greener corporation. Some of the things that the company proposed was the management and creation of new wastewater management sites, cleaner buildings with efficient lighting and recycling programs. Some of the other things that IBM created was smart grids, which use less electricity, and promote hibernation, so that electrical systems were not always working at full power. The company also created new data centers which were must more efficient than their predecessors. More specifically, IBM was able to modify their software code so that the software does not take up a lot of energy to run. On any computer, the amount of memory and RAM, is significantly impacted by what types of software you use. If you use resource intensive software, the amount of power needed to run the computer will increase significantly to be able to run the software. With more efficient software programs, the amount of power needed to run the computer significantly decreases. Thus, all of the companies that use IBM's software, will also be cutting down on the energy demands which will then make the earth a greener place to live.

The first major ethical theory that will analyze IBM’s decision to go green is individualism. IBM's green efforts do not violate the theory of individualism. Individualism is the theory that everyone is subject to their own wants and desires. Whatever an individual may desire, they have the right to do it. In the case of IBM, their green efforts do not violate the ethical theory of Individualism. Under individualism, IBM has the right to do anything they desire in order to increase profits. If IBM wants to turn their factories, office buildings, to a greener form of energy, they have every right to do so. When you start to realize how much money a company can save by switching to green alternatives, it seems that it is the right thing to do. Under the Individualist theory, IBM is a very ethical company, because they are only doing things in their best interest, by switching to green alternatives.

IBM's green efforts also do not violate the utilitarian theory. The utilitarian theory is based on the idea that the decision that an individual or organization is deciding, should make everybody happy. A decision is ethical under the Utilitarian view as long as the everybody involved in the decision is happy, including the people who are directly and indirectly affected by it. When IBM switches to renewable energy or green alternatives, they are making the company shareholders happy, because they are reducing the costs involved with doing business. Also by switching to other green alternatives, they are benefiting the entire planet. If the earth is clean and beautiful, everybody will be happy. IBM’s decision to go green agrees with the Utilitarian ethical theory.

The third and fourth ethical theory that can analyze IBM’s green alternatives is the Kantian theory, and the Virtue theory. IBM's green efforts does not violate either the Kantian or Virtue theory. The Kantian theory is the ethical view that an individual or organization should act rational and respect everybody that is affected either directly or indirectly because of the decision. In any decision, everyone should be respectful of anyone that is affected by the decision. Since IBM’s green efforts would drastically improve the environment as well as in the long-run, save money, their efforts would agree with the Kantian theory, because the company is looking out for individuals and everyone by contributing to making the environment a cleaner place to live. Under the virtue theory there are four main virtues that surround this idea. These four virtues are courage, honesty, temperance, and justice. Under this theory, green alternatives for IBM would be fit all of these virtues. Creating a cleaner environment is courageous because there are many organizations that do not want to go green, because of the initial costs. IBM is also showing honesty, because it is at least it is releasing how they recycle, and what types of work they are doing to improve the environment.  IBM’s green efforts also fit under temperance, because it is restraining itself from using other less costly methods to just dump their trash in waterways and not recycling the trash. The green efforts also fit under justice because it is making the earth a better place to live for all.

By using the four ethical theories listed above, one can begin to realize that IBM is a very ethical company in regards to its green efforts. By not violating any of the above theories, it shows that IBM is a leader in making the world a cleaner, and more beautiful place to call home.

These analyses and facts are based upon the original paper by Robert Daniels entitled "IBM: The Big Green Project" (Apr. 25, 2012).

Desjardins, Joseph. (2009). An Introduction to Business Ethics (Ed: 4). New York, NY:

                The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Forbes (October 19,2009). The 200 Best Small Companies. Retrieved from

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/23/small-companies-09_The-200-Best-Small-Companies_Rank.html . On August 28, 2010

“Green and Beyond.” Getting smarter about the environment. IBM, September 2009.

Web. 25 Apr. 2012. http://public.dhe.ibm.com/common/ssi/ecm/en/gbe03246usen/GBE03246USEN.PDF

“Green Launches” IBM’s Green Innovation Data Center. CNET. 22,Sep. 2009. Web 25 Apr 2012.

                http://www.greenlaunces.com/gadgets-and-tech/ibms_green_innovation_data_center.php

Ian, Yarret. “Newsweek.” Green Ranking the worlds greenest companies. Newsweek, 16. Oct. 2011. Web. 25 Apr 2012. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/10/16/green-rankings-2011.html

“IBM 2011 Annual Report. IBM. IBM, 2011. Web. 25 Apr 2012.

                http://www.ibm.com/investor/pdf/2011_ibm_annual.pdf
IBM News room - 2007-05-10 IBM Unveils Plan to Combat Data Center Energy Crisis; Allocates $1 Billion to Advance "Green" Technology and Services - United States. (n.d.). IBM - United States. Retrieved March 14, 2013, from http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/21524

Salazar, Heather. Kantian Business Ethics. Retrieved from https://manhattan.wnec.edu/betabin/news_read?crs=c210/ph21153&id=chzxwsthOOfuN7&loc=876&grp=4  on September 30, 2010.

Pepsi Slogan “Skinnier Is Better” Gets a Big Fat ‘No’ (2011)

Based on a paper by Andrew Rodrigues and Ryan Bakes

Summary by Katie Guckel

Pepsi’s new sales pitch “Skinnier Is Better” left a bad taste in consumers’ mouths. The multibillion-dollar American multinational food and beverage corporation launched a slogan for their new Diet Pepsi can that turned off and offended consumers. PepsiCo introduced the slogan for their new, smaller can diet cola during the 2011 fashion week. PepsiCo is a fashion week sponsor and the company’s marketing team thought they were capitalizing on chronemics, but instead they were offending almost half the nation. Chief marketing officer Jill Beraud stated "Our slim, attractive new can is the perfect complement to today's most stylish looks, and we're excited to throw its coming-out party during the biggest celebration of innovative design in the world." Critics found the offensive sales pitch as nothing to celebrate. Because women are vulnerable during a week where skinny, conventionally beautiful women take over the media, Pepsi’s intentions were not taken as they had hoped. The message came off as offensive and stereotyped the media's flawed views on women's body types. The National Eating Disorders Association had a field day with the inappropriate pitch, claiming it was insensitive and gave women a false impression. The company replied with an e-mail defending the unintended controversy, stating  "We are sensitive to this interpretation, and that is definitely not our intent, we intend to highlight the innovative look for Diet Pepsi and provide our fans with an "inside look" at events that celebrate innovation and style."

              Individualism would have accepted the slogan had it maximized profits like the company had hoped for. PepsiCo launched the pitch during fashion week, with the hopes that the scene itself would promote the product. Pepsi was looking to generate hype about the product by portraying an ideal image for women. Individualism would not look at the effects on consumers, but instead on how much profit the company made. Because the slogan was ineffective and actually lost Pepsi money, individualism would reject the proposal.

            Utilitarianism determines what is ethical based on the happiness of the stakeholders. In this case, the stakeholders are PepsiCo, specifically their marketing team, consumers, and anyone affected by the sales pitch. Because the controversial slogan offended people before the product hit the shelves, it had a negative effect on the happiness of the stakeholders, therefore the theory rejects the case. If the pitch encouraged and motivated consumers the outcome could have been different. 

              Kantianism is broken up into four major principles, the first being to act rationally. If Pepsi had acted rationally they would have empathized with their consumers, many of whom struggle with weight issues. PepsiCo irrationally acted as if they were exempt from considering their consumers feelings. The second principle helps people to make rational decisions. Portraying “Skinnier Is Better” as the goal for women to try and achieve is not helping them make rational decisions. Eating disorders are extremely unhealthy and potentially life threatening, therefore this marketing approach is promoting irrational decisions. The third principle says to respect people, their autonomy, and individual needs and differences. If this principle were followed, Pepsi would have recognized that every person has a different body type. Achieving an autonomous “super skinny” shape is nearly impossible for some and undesirable for others. The last principle says to be motivated by goodwill.  Taking advantage of some women's insecurities is an unethical marketing strategy. Had Pepsi been motivated by goodwill they would have promoted health over body image. 

           Finally, virtue theory was violated because PepsiCo neglected some characteristics that would have allowed their campaign to properly function. Although virtues are essentially limitless, four primary examples include courage, honesty, temperance and justice. Pepsi perhaps showed some courage by taking a risk with their campaign, despite misjudging their consumer's reaction. Pepsi could have improved their temperance by working more modesty and humility into their campaign. They could have promoted their diet soda as a healthy choice instead of a means to achieve their ideal "skinny" body image.

These facts and analyses are based on an original research paper by: Andrew Rodrigues and Ryan Bakes, “Pepsi’s ‘Skinny’ Can Controversy” (2011)

Celentano, Domenick. "Diet Pepsi Skinny Can Launch Creating Backlash and Controversy." Food & Beverage. (2011): n. page. Print. <http://foodbeverage.about.com/b/2011/02/23/diet-pepsi-skinny-can-launch-creating-backlash-and-controversy.htm>.

"Diet Pepsi's "Skinny Can" Stirs Controversy at New York's Fashion Week Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/02/11/diet-pepsis-skinny-stirs-controversy-new-yorks-fashion-week/

Skidmore, Sarah. "Diet Pepsi 'Skinn'y Can Stirs Up Big Controversy." Huffington Post. (2011): n. page. Print. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/11/diet-pepsi-skinny-can-sti_n_822046.html>.

Boeing in the Business of Bribery (2003)

Synopsis of a paper by Zachary Murphy

Written by Ryan Scott

       

        Boeing, a USA based aerospace and defense contractor, found itself in a lawsuit launched by the Federal Government in 2003 on the charge of Bribing a Government Official. Boeing Chief Financial Officer Micheal Sears is specifically mentioned, and is the primary focus of the government's case. Sears was found illegally recruiting a federal officer named Darleen Druyun, offering her a six figure salary in exchange for a $20 billion contract for building tanker refueling machines. This led to the sale of a fleet of defense aircraft to the US Air Force for $11 billion more than the planes usually cost. During the investigation, Boeing was also found in unlawful possession of some 30,000 pages of research data belonging to one of Boeing's competitors, Lockheed Martin. The jury found Boeing guilty of Bribing a Government Official and forced to pay $700 million to the Federal Government. 

         According to the four ethical theories of business used, the choice made by Boeing to bribe the defense department of the US government is unethical. In response from Individualism, the choice made by Boeing was unethical. Individualism does not believe it was unethical for Boeing to take steps to maximize profit; however, Boeing must do so within the bounds of the law. When Boeing committed bribery and illegally took possession of Lockheed Martin's research data, Boeing's actions to maximize profit are no longer ethical. If Boeing had increased its profit as much as it had without breaking the law, Individualism would see Boeing's move as ethical. 

         According to the Utilitarian Theory, Boeing's decisions were unethical. Those that make up the US Government are human beings capable of experiencing emotions of happiness, and according to Utilitarianism, it is Boeing's responsibility as a business to bring about happiness within its body of consumers, which include all of those who own and use commercial airliners, those who pay taxes to the United States Government, those who own one or more shares of the company, and those who are employed by Boeing. Boeing did not bring about happiness within its consumers because Boeing's decisions were deceptive and weighted to favor profit making as the number one priority. If Boeing were able to make as much profit as they did deceptively without being deceptive, Utilitarianism would view them as an ethical company. 

         According to the Kantian theory of business ethics, Boeing's decisions were unethical. Kantianism demands that all engaged in business practices treat each of the business's consumers and employees as rational beings capable of feeling emotion, and they should be given the opportunity to fully exercise their rational when making decisions to purchase and sell. Boeing was in violation of this teaching when making a hidden deal with a government official in order to steer contract decisions in Boeing's favor, as well as increasing the price on a good without being transparent with the consumer. This violates Kant's Formulation for Humanity by dismissing the opportunity entitled to the consumer to use their rational in return for just using the consumer as a means to make more profit. If Boeing had allowed all consumers involved to fully exercise their rational when making business choices, Boeing would not have been in the wrong despite how much money Boeing made off the decision. 

         According to the Aristotelian Virtue Theory, Boeing's move was unethical. Virtue Theory teaches that humans need to practice honesty, fairness , and judgement amongst other virtues in order to achieve a sense of a "well lived life". Boeing intentionally did not choose to practice honesty and fairness with the Department of Defense when going over these contracts. Boeing used deception and lying instead of honesty and fairness in order to achieve a higher level of profit for the company. In order to have been viewed as an ethical choice, Boeing would have had to made the profit they made without violating any of the virtues of importance to Aristotelians, and also choose not to violate them simply because that would be the wrong thing to do.
   
       Ultimately, those who are responsible for the choices made in this case was decided by the jury to be the CFO of Boeing, as well as all high ranking officers in the company who were aware of what was going on, as well as Darleen Druyun, who was willing to "stick it" to the government in return for a large salary with benefits from Boeing.

These facts and analysis are based on an original research paper written by Zachary Murphy “Boeing Bribery Case: The Bribery of Darleen Pruyun” (fall semester 2012)
http://www.defense.gov/dodcmsshare/newsphoto/1999-05/990420-F-7910D-507.jpg

 http://d1k4es7bw1lvxt.cloudfront.net/showPicture.php?programid=162800&height=290&width=427

http://www.pitt.edu/~ajl73/boeing_logo.jpg
Holmes, Stanly."Boeing: not out of Scandal's Clouds." Bloomsberg Business Week, 18 Feb.2005.Bus
"Boeing." Forbes.Forbes Magazine,20 Apr.2011.

Nokia Lumia “Blown away” campaign (2012)

                           Synopsis of a paper by Jesse Bain

Written by Marine Baud

  

Nokia launched its blown away campaign in 2012 in India. The campaign aimed to challenge rival Smartphone brands into a competition of updating profile on famous social networks. This competition of speed was aimed at seeing who would achieve the specific task faster. Nokia India Marketing Director Viral Oza said “The Lumia 800 emerged as a clear winner by winning 94% of the total 104 challenges timed by Nielsen." It was said that Nielsen, the marketing and advertising company, validated the campaign. After the rival had beaten the case, the candidate held up a sign saying “My phone just got blown away by the Nokia Lumia” and the final advertisement only showed the winning timed tests (See the following video). This campaign has nevertheless been highly criticized by the competitors and mainly the major one, Samsung, which was highly used by the opposite participants and thus advertised. In the following video, we clearly recognize a Iphone. A spokeswoman from the company even accused the campaign for being “clearly unethical”.

The company was created in Finland in 1865. In 2011, Nokia was one of the largest mobile phone producers in the world and named the 160^th best company according to Forbes. Nokia’s business operations are separated into three different segments. These segments are Devices & Services, Location & Commerce and finally Nokia Siemen Networks. Even though the company’s profits have steadily decreased through the past four years, Nokia still reported a profit of 202 million euros for the last quarter of 2012. 

After having lost a lot of customers on the highly profitable Indian market, the company has decided to launch in 2012 the “Blown Away by Nokia Lumia” campaign in the country. While some theorists argue that the campaign was ethical, such as the individualists embodied by Milton Friedman, others argue that it wasn’t legitimate and unethical, such as Utilitarianism, Kantianism and finally the virtue theories.

 

"My phone got blown away by Nokia Lumia"

 The individualist theory argues that the goal of a business is to make a profit for the company and the shareholders. It is an egoist theory that focuses on maximizing freedom under the constraint of the law. By releasing the blown away campaign, Nokia has definitely served its own interests in an attempt to attract Indian customers to buy the Lumia 800 and not competitor’s similar types of cellphones. This campaign would thus be considered ethical by individualists.

 

 

On the contrary, the Utilitarian would have to evaluate the overall outcome of the campaign and measure global happiness. Stakeholders in this case are Nokia customers, the company, the competitors such as Samsung and Apple and their customers. All actions must aim at something good; there should not be altruism nor egoism. This case is quite complicated as we cannot completely be sure about the overall results but what we can tell is that it will maximize happiness of Lumia customers as well as the company but surely not the competitors. By showing their cellphones being beaten by the nokia phone, it risks decreasing the other customers’ satisfaction as well as the competitors’. As a whole, this campaign would be more unethical according to Utilitarianisms given the fact that the company does reduce the happiness of its competitors and that globally, there are more people using different cellphones in India than the Lumia 800.

Kantianism theory argues that people should be treated as rational and as an end not as a means, which is the opposite of the Utilitarianists' theory. The theory has four principles: Act rationally, allow and help people to make a rational decision, respect people and their differences, and be motivated by good will. The main problem that Kantian would point out lies in the second principle: allow and help people to make rational decision. The blown away campaign does not help people evaluate what are the advantages and disadvantages of the product as the campaign shows and wants people to believe the Nokia lumia 800 is the best product on the market. By showing competitors’ cellphones being defeated all the time, Nokia treats customers as a means to achieve profit by trying to make them want to buy their mobiles and not as an end to satisfy them as much as they can. It is thus unethical.

Finally, the virtue theory is more related to one’s character and it allows things to function properly. There are several virtues of character and most of them as violated, making this advertisement unethical. Honesty, fairness and justice are not respected by Nokia given that they only advertise what is in their pure interests, namely the successful experiences, which is totally subjective. 

 After having being highly criticized, Nokia India Director of Marketing, Viral Oza said that “This challenge has not been created to target competition but to highlight the social media capabilities of the device", which left many people skeptic about the real intention of Nokia at first. One year later, it still remains difficult to evaluate the outcome of the campaign in India and the possible market share gained from it.

 

These facts and analysis are based on an original research paper written by Jesse Bain “Nokia Lumia Blown away campaign” (fall semester 2012)

Liam, Will. “Nokia smart Vital Campaign Attack Leaves Samsung Fuming” The Economic Times.

Web. 25 Apr. 2012. <http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/currentquote.cms?ticker=nokia+india+market

“Nokia.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine. Web. 25 Apr. 2012.

< http://www.forbes.com/companies/nokia/

« Nokia ‘smart’ Viral Campaign Attack Leaves Samsung Fuming » The Economic Times.

Web. 25 Apr. 2012.

< http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/currentquote.cms?ticker=nokia+india+market

Writankar, Mukherjee. “Samsung: Nokia Lumia Campaign Unethical.” The Times if India.

Web. 25 Apr. 2012. < http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-07-06/gadgets-special/32565644_1_windows-phone-nokia-lumia-apps

Rich Edmonds. “Is Nokia's "Blown away by Lumia" marketing campaign in India unethical?

Samsung thinks so.” Wp central. Web. 12 Feb. 2013. Apr. 11 2012.

< http://www.wpcentral.com/nokias-marketing-campaign-india-unethical-according-samsung

Charlen S. “Samsung calls Nokia’s “Blown away by Lumia” campaign “clearly unethical”.

 Phone arena. Web. 12 Feb. 2013. Apr. 11 2012.

< http://www.phonearena.com/news/Samsung-calls-Nokias-Blown-away-by-Lumia-campaign-clearly-unethical_id28994

Walt Disney Company: The Wrong Message to Kids (2012)

Walt Disney Company: The Wrong Message to Kids (2012)

Based on a paper by Sara Martins 

Summary by Cody Wopschall

The Walt Disney Company, in February of 2012, created a new attraction called “Habit Heroes”. This new creation of Disney is an attraction at the Epcot theme park as well as an online gaming experience. Habit Heroes is about two heroes, Callie Stenics and Will Power, who fight villains with the help of the kids playing the game. The villains of this attraction are Lead Bottom, The Snacker, Control Freak, Drama Queen, and more. These villains have individually unique but equally bad habits such as eating too much, watching and playing a lot of TV and video games, and not exercising. The point of this attraction is to bring these bad habits to the attention of the children and their parents to help them steer clear from a “bad” life.  The initial reaction to the public was disgust.  Families that go to Disney were very offended at the fact that their children were being encouraged to fight overweight people just because they were overweight.  Children that happened to be overweight now felt self conscious and unwanted for who they were.  The families offended by this new attraction didn't feel like they were in the happiest place on earth.

The actions taken by Disney violated the four ethical theories.  The Economic or Individualism Theory states that people high up in a company need to do everything in their power to satisfy the needs of profitability for their owner(s) and shareholders.  By continuing this attraction, more and more people will be offended and probably not return to Disney as long as Habit Heroes is up and running.  Less people at Disney World means less profit and that is certainly not caring to the needs of the owner and shareholders.  Utilitarianism is the view that one should do things to maximize happiness for themselves and for others.  Majority of the people who experienced Habit Heroes felt upset rather than happy.  The stakeholders during this experimental attraction were overweight children or adults, anyone who has habits that were viewed as "wrong" in the attraction, and relativity anyone working high up in the Disney Corporation.  The Habit Heroes experience reduced the happiness in the tourists and it reduces the happiness for the creators and Disney because it is shinning a negative light on the entire operation.  The Kantian Theory says that one should act rationally while making business decisions, respect people and help them make rational decisions, and to do these good things for the fact that it is the right thing to do.  By singling out a select group of people and villainizing them, they offended and disrespected their customers.  Disney appeared to be doing a good deed by trying to help people make healthier choices but they ended up just causing emotional damage.  The final theory that Disney violated was the Virtue Theory.  This theory states that one should do something in a virtuous and character-like way as well as abiding by the four virtues of courage, honesty, temperance, and justice.  Disney mad an insensitive game for kids that over exaggerated the personalities of the overweight characters in an offensive manner.  The game overall was far from the Virtue Theory and it ended up to just a an all around failure.  Disney needs to understand that this new attraction is doing more harm than good.  There are other, more sensitive, alternatives to addressing the public about healthier life styles than singling out a group of people.

These facts and analyses are based on an original research paper by Sara Martins, “Habit Heroes Controversy” (2012).

Gray, Emma. "Disney's Latest Controversy." The Huffington Post.  TheHuffingtonPost.com, 24 Feb. 2012. Web. 17 Apr. 2012. 

                <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/24/disney-habit-heroes-anti-obesity-disney-world-epcot_n_1299664.html>

"Habit Heroes Proves Unable to Save Itself at Epcot." The Epcot Explorer's Encyclopedia. 5 Feb. 2012. Web. 17 Apr. 2012.

                <http://www.epcyclopedia.com/2012/02/05/habit-hereos-proves-unable-to-save-itself-at-epcot/>.

"Innoventions Habit Heroes Temporarily Closed." Mickey Updates. 26 Feb. 2012. Web. 17 Apr. 2012.   http://www.mickeyupdates.com/2012/innoventions-habit-heroes-temporarily-closed/

CVS/Pharmacy Fails to Follow Federal Drug Regulations (2010)

 

                                    Synopsis of a paper by Ethan Allen and Karisa Gaebel

Written by Nick Tougas

 

Methamphetamine, also known as "speed," is a very addicting stimulant of the central nervous system. The drug causes a high that can last up to a day. However, eventually that high wears off and the users experiences a crash. To nullify the crash, the users will combat it by continuous use of the drug. Often times, these users purchase the drug illegally, from an individual and this can be problematic. Can you imagine if many of the users or drug dealers had easy access to this drug from "The biggest operator of retail pharmacies in the United States?" That's exactly what was happening between 2007 and 2008 in Southern California. The reason for this was because the pharmacies did not comply with the federal daily and monthly limits of an individual purchasing pseudoephedrine. By gaining access to excess pseudoephedrine, these customers were able to create methamphetamine.

 

 

According to the pharmacies involved, they did not realize the issue with the software that did not restrict the sale of the drug to someone who exceeded the federally regulated amount. Despite their claim that it did not restrict or prompt the pharmacy cashiers, it seems unlikely that the manager of the pharmacies did not notice or look into a drastic increase in the sales of pseudoephedrine.

 

This skepticism suggests that the pharmacies involved may were aware of a drastic increase and that, while they may not have known what the drug was being used for, they may have intentionally ignored the regulations to increase profits for the store. In addition to this, a pharmacy manager would have a pretty good idea that selling more of the drug than legally allowed, would lead to drug dealers creating methamphetamine with it. This would be a complete disregard to the well-being of the public which is not a highly attractive quality for a pharmacy to possess. At best, this situation was a very large oversight and neglect towards the regulations. At worst, this was a disregard for the public and a focus strictly on profit despite the implementations on society.

 

These actions by the pharmacies would not qualify as ethical in any of the ethical theories. In terms of individualism, this would be unethical because the practice by the pharmacies was illegal. While it does promote the idea of generating profit being the overall goal, however, even considering that, the CVS/Pharmacies involved ended up forfeiting the money they had earned and it could be argued that the illegal practice was not a good decision because it was too risky. Utilitarianism focuses on making yourself, as well as other people. The theory values everyone's happiness as being equal. In this case you could argue that the pharmacy was happy because of an increase in profits and the customers were happy because they were able to get drugs they wanted to obtain. However, it seems that rather than truly making those people happy, they just reinforced the addiction of the users of the drug. It is hard to describe someone who has any serious addiction to be happy. The main focus of utilitarianism is the outcome. The outcome of this case did not provide anyone with happiness. The theory of Kantianism stresses rationality and respect. The pharmacies did not respect the public whether it was an intentional oversight or and unintentionally oversight. That conflicts with kantianism right away. On top of that, not only is the decision to illegally sell the drugs, not rational, it was also done for a completely selfish reason and conflicts with the idea of being rightly motivated. Aside from these points, the pharmacies were using people who due to their addiction, were not thinking rationally and took advantage of them. This is a complete disrespect for people and not ethical in terms of the kantian theory. The stakeholders such as the customers, now may be uncertain about getting their prescriptions at CVS because of the issue. The virtue theory explains ethics as achieving positive virtues for themselves as well as others. This act of the pharmacies displayed only negative factors such as greed, disrespect, and taking advantage of people. These factors are far from good virtues like honesty and respect. To comply with this theory, the pharmacies should have ensured that the regulations were followed and that there would be no way for the drugs would end up being used in the ways that they were.

 

It is clear that CVS/Pharmacy's actions would be considered unethical within the standards of any of the four ethical theories. It is hard to imagine any way of rationally looking at ethics in a way that would deem this practice as ethical behavior.The only possible benefit is the increase in profits for the business while criminals are enabled to sell drugs to addicted individuals more easily due to this practice.

No matter what your thoughts are on the punishment of the pharmacies involved, I think it is evident that after an issue like this, it is vital that the pharmacies ensure that they monitor the regulations and prevent them from being ignored in the future. Aside from the forfeiting of the money, it is likely that the pharmacies that were involved in the illegal practices, lost a lot of business due to this. Had the businesses had a more ethical approach they could have avoided all of those issues and had the satisfaction of being an ethical business

 

These facts and analysis are based on an original research paper written by Ethan Allen and Karisa Gaebel, "CVS Lawsuit and Ethical Analysis (2010)"

 

Associated press. "CVS to Pay $75 Million Fine for Meth." foxnews.com

              http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/10/14/cvs-pay-million-fine-meth/

              (Associated Press September 16, 2011)

 

"CVS Caremark Facts." CVS Caremark /. CVS Caremark, 2011. Web. 04 Oct. 2011.

              http://info.cvscaremark.com/our-company/cvs-caremark-facts.

 

Department of Health. "Federal Pseudoephedrine Law." www.doh.state.fl.us

              http://www.doh.state.fl.us/mqa/pharmacy/info_federallaw.pdf

              (September 16, 2011)

DesJardins, Joseph. An Introduction to Business Ethics, Fourth Edition. New York:McGraw-Hill 2011

 

 

JPMorgan Chase & Co.: Reckless & Fraudulent Practices To Boost Revenue (2009)

Synopsis of a paper by Alan Alvarez

Jourdan Parkinson

In the year 2009  JPMorgan Chase & Co. engaged in dishonest, deceptive and outrageous assessment and collection of overdraft fees. As a result they were sued by numerous customers who had been affected in the fraudulent practices.  In the year 2009 JPMorgan established itself as a financial superpower, ranking as #2 on Forbes' Global 2000 list. Founded by Aaron Burr in 1799, JPMorgan & Co. quickly grew to the largest U.S. bank by assets; many will begin to question how they truly managed to achieve such remarkable success.  Chase reached a preliminary agreement to pay $110 million to settle litigation.

The scandal began when customers began noticing that the credit card debts being submitted to the debt collectors every month on their behalf by JPMorgan were in fact not the appropriate amounts that they should be but "inflated" amounts, well above what they should have been charged. JPMorgan accomplished this by creating false overdraft charges to the accounts of these unsuspecting customers, giving them the impression that they owed more money than they actually did. As a result of these overdraft fees Chase, a subsidiary of JPMorgan was able to make revenue of over $1 Billion off of the false overdraft fees in just the 2009 year alone.  Out of the four ethical theories studied; Individualism, Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Virtue Theory, only one of them agrees with the actions of JP Morgan & Chase. According to the Friedman's economic theory of Individualism, the only goal of a business is to profit, meaning that the only obligation is to maximize profit for the owners or stockholders of that company. JPMorgan acted consistently with this theory because they only cared for maximizing profits within their company, with no regards to how and who it affected. Utilitarian Theory believes that happiness or pleasure are the only things of intrinsic value, JPMorgan did not act in accordance with these beliefs when they committed acts of financial theft for their own self-interest.  Perhaps the ethical theory that JPMorgan Chase & Co. most contradicted was that of the Kantianism View. This theory indicates that you must act rationally and consistently in your own actions. It states that you must not consider yourself exempt from rules, you must allow and help people to make rational decisions as well as respect people, their autonomy, and individual needs and differences. But most importantly you must be motivated by Good Will, and seek to do what is right because it is right. The actions of Chase did not act in accordance with any aspect whatsoever in this theory, they stole from customers and did not respect their individual needs. Chase also  lied to staff members, fabricating stories and commanding them to take orders without questions.Virtue Theorists believe strongly in "good virtues", or characteristics that allow things to properly function. Such "virtues" include honesty, temperance, fairness, and courage. It was unfair and dishonest of chase to falsely charge customers in order to maximize profits. There was no temperance or self-restraint in the actions they committed because no thought in regards to the possible ramifications was enough to restrain them. All of these actions by Chase are in direct conflict with the Virtue Theory and therefore not supported by it. Failure to follow three out of the four ethical theory previously discussed resulted in a forced payout of over $100 million dollars for JPMorgan & Co.

 These facts and analyses are based on an original research paper by Alan Alvarez“JPMorgan Chase & Co.: Overcharging to Boost Revenue" (2009). 

Bloomberg News. "JPMorgan Chase to Settle Overdraft-fee Lawsuit." SFGate. N.p., 7 Feb. 2012. Web. 07 Feb. 2013.