Final Paper

Introduction Businesses are at the core of all the activities of the World today. Individuals, corporate entities as well as governments are engaged in business activities with each other (Sen, 2008). Each of these persons is in business for a common goal of profit maximization. In their endeavor to pursue this goal, managers often find themselves in a dilemma. The dilemmas stem from the presence of conflicts of interest for the managers (Paliwal, 2006). At times, they are faced with personal needs where they have personal interests in the subject matter in their line of duty. For them to avoid such instances, it would be prudent of them to uphold the organizational values and code of ethics. Ethics in business Ethical practices are crucial not only in the business World but also in enhancing the quality of life we live, our morals and principles. Being ethical is at the core of how the society perceives organizations, whether for-profit or not-for-profit (Reddy, & Appannaiah, 2010). In this study, we will focus the ethical side of two organizations, profit making one and a not-for-profit one. We will use Pepsi Company as our profit making firm, and World Vision will suit our not-for-profit bill. In this study, we will analyze how each of these organizations carries out their activities with regards to ethics. We will attempt to explain their ethical dilemmas and how each of them has handled its case and the consequences of their actions. We will also look at the ethical philosophies that back up the ethical decisions of each organization. In this section, we will discuss their ethical philosophy and whether it was adequate to address their ethical dilemma. We will then make suggestions on the way forward for each organization on how they can ensure that they conduct their operations in an ethical manner for the good of all the stakeholders. World Vision This is a Christian Based not-for-profit organization that seeks to improve the lives of the less fortunate in the society especially children. This organization depends on donors to contribute funds that are pooled together to support and empower children in ninety-seven countries. It is an organization that has come far in terms of growth, having been founded in 1950 by Reverend Pierce. The organization has various stakeholders who enable it to efficiently fulfill its mandate in improving the lives of young children. Its focus is on the empowerment of these bright children from developing nations by giving them hope for a better future through education. The firm offers sponsorship programs that enable these children to access quality education and access to other basic needs. Upon being founded, the firm waited for three years to raise funds to sponsor its first beneficiaries of sponsorship to needy children. Besides offering sponsorship, the organization has been at the forefront of humanitarian efforts to places that require such help. For instance, its arms in Liberia, Ethiopia, Malawi, and India have been responsive to the humanitarian crisis in those countries raging from natural calamities such as floods and famine. The organization works tirelessly in its endeavor to provide relief food, shelter and clothing to victims of hunger and floods. Despite its good vision and mission and a good moral evangelical background, the organization has not stood out of controversies. The organization has faced several controversies regarding its way of operations. In the recent past, the organization has been accused of among others; political interference in foreign countries, corruption of its officials and inadequacy of child sponsorship in addressing the societal needs. As we break down into each of these dilemmas and ethical issues for the organization, it will become clear why it is under criticisms for unethical behavior. Corruption More often officials of organizations find themselves in a compromising position regarding their take on several issues. This stems from the conflict of interest where they have a personal interest on the subject matter. This personal interest hinders objectivity while exercising their mandate to make decisions on behalf of the firm. The personal interest makes these officials blind to the point that they want to engage in activities that will benefit them at a personal level as opposed to the objectives of the organization (Reddy, & Appannaiah, 2010). Corruption is like a cancer that is malignant in our society. It eats up the very core of our moral values and leaves the society more vulnerable to issues such as poverty, diseases, and illiteracy. It is an addictive vice that makes its perpetrators repeat it often as its benefits are highly rewarding. This vice makes the perpetrators more greedy and more committed to achieving their goal in looting monies meant to help the needy in the society. It leaves these needy in an awkward situation where they have no one else to turn to, and their hope is dwindled in their attempt to survive and make a living out of their efforts. Their efforts are thwarted by these corrupt officials with monies aimed at improving their living standards being diverted to other accounts for personal gains. These corrupt officials have no mercy for the needy as they loot public funds that are meant to give hope to these needy people. By being corrupt, they are not only affecting the present state of these people but also their future. For instance, in Malawi and Liberia, allegations of senior officials being engaged in corruption led to an audit into the organization's accounts where they were found to be corrupt. They were using their power and influence to divert foodstuff and other supplies for other uses instead of helping the needy. They were going against the organization's objectives of improving the living standards of the needy. Child sponsorship The organization has faced widespread criticism regarding its sponsorship of some students. Critics argue that the sponsorship is discriminative as it only singles out a few needy kids while leaving the rest as hopeless as before. To make matters worse, the kids whoare left behind feel like they were not as good enough or as deserving of the organization's help. In Ethiopia, a foreign journalist once interviewed a beneficiary who did not even know she was a beneficiary of World Vision. All she had received from the organization was a pen and a school bag some years ago. Despite this fact, her file at World Vision indicated that she had been receiving aid and that she had learned how to speak English yet she could barely utter any English words. This tells of many similar cases in developing countries where the officials divert the financial aid to elsewhere while leaving the beneficiaries in dire need of basic needs. The misrepresentation of facts regarding beneficiaries' records is also to blame for leaving such children vulnerable to early marriages and unwanted pregnancies in the developing World. In doing this, they do little to foster any hope among these children. Political Interference The organization's arm in Australia has been previously accused of funding terror groups such as the Union of Agricultural Work Committees. It was alleged that the organization funded this terror group through its Australian office, claims that the organization denied. This did little to restore its tainted image as such firms are expected to take a neutral stand away from politics. They are supposed to improve the welfare of the people (Reddy, & Appannaiah, 2010) through the charity as opposed to funding uprisings and terror groups. Pepsi Company This is a multinational company that has business interests in the beverage and food industry. The company has grown through numerous mergers and acquisitions into the current PepsiCo Inc. This company has set its footprints in the food and beverage industry in all the continents of the World. It is a making profit company whose main objective is to maximize profits for the sake of shareholders (Reddy, & Appannaiah, 2010). This company has come a long way in terms of growth. It has grown in assets, equity, the number of subsidiaries and customer base. It is currently among the World's largest food and beverage companies. So big has been its success that it has dominated the Russian food and beverage industry through its Russian subsidiary. Its main competitors include CocaCola and RC Cola. Ethical principles contribute to good business operations. When a business upholds ethical behavior, it influences how outsiders perceive its actions. . An ethical company is more likely to attract new customers while retaining previous ones. It can enhance customer loyalty (Paliwal, 2006). Ethics enhances customer's confidence in the way a company handles its business operations, thus locking in the customers in the business. It also enhances customer satisfaction through good governance and good practices as per the provisions of business ethics. Unfortunately for PepsiCo, its ethical walk has not been as rosy even if it has won ethical awards on several occasions. This is a contrast to the ethical values that the company has exuded over the years. It has been at the forefront of good business practices by ensuring ethical behavior while carrying out its business activities and also in its dealings with its stakeholders. Although this has been the case, the company failed to consider some stakeholders in its research for taste testing. The company has faced allegations of unethical practices stemming from its operations. For instance, the company has been accused among others of contributing to the high carbon emissions through the use of plastic bottles in the packaging of its beverage products. The company has also faced allegations regarding the use of aborted fetal cells in its taste testing studies. Use of aborted fetal cells in its taste testing research This is the biggest ethical issue that has ever faced this multinational. Despite the fact that it has received numerous awards for being ethical in its business operations, the company suffered a major blow for using aborted fetal cells in its research. This was followed by a boycott by pro-life activists calling for a massive slowdown in the purchase and consumption of PepsiCo's products. The criticism leveled against the company was that its business processes lacked moral values of Christian values. Many religious groups advised their members against consuming PepsiCo's products as they had no respect for human life. The company reacted to these claims by denying that it had used the original cells from aborted fetuses. The company argued that it used cells from the original cells of the fetuses thus distancing itself from these allegations. This did little to salvage its damaged reputation, especially to the pro-life lobby groups. For these lobby groups, the company acted unethically by supporting abortion indirectly. The maxims of equity state that no man shall benefit from another's misfortune. These lobby groups perceive the aborted fetuses as human beings who were denied a chance to live their life. They argue that based on equality, every human should be accorded a right to live, as life is sacred. They support the notion that life should be protected at all costs (Reddy, & Appannaiah, 2010). By using the cells from aborted fetuses, the company crossed the line in the protection of human life by becoming a beneficiary of abortion. They argue that although the company did not directly conduct the abortion, it procured some cells of these fetuses for the sole purpose of the research. In their view, the lobbyists accuse the company of condoning and upholding abortion for purposes of research and development of new products for its selfish gain of enhancing its beverage flavors. That was the main reason behind the boycott for PepsiCo's products. Ethical Evaluation For each of these two organizations, the allegations laid against them were true and founded. The two organizations did little to avert the criticism levied against their actions. For PepsiCo, it failed to engage its customers who are at the very core of its business in its research project. The company failed to take the views of the customers with regards to their perception on the issue of abortion and its intended use of cells from aborted fetuses. The company failed miserably to engage the customers yet they are because the success and growth of the company. It is this failure on their part that threatened to ruin this company's reputation. The claims by the lobby groups were well founded as their faith as per their religion, and biblical teachings forbid abortion. This is also the reason such people fail to condone any actions that are perceived to uphold abortion while lowering the sanctity of life. Therefore, the company created this dilemma in its mission to find out how such cells would influence and enhance the different flavors. I would say that the company deserved the criticism as it was reckless in its actions and decision to use cells from aborted fetuses in taste testing research. In my view, the company should have averted such criticism by taking an anonymous research among beverage customers to find out their perception about the use of cells from aborted fetuses in taste testing research. This anonymity would have saved the day for the company instead of embarrassing and damaging its reputation openly and opening itself to criticism by the various pro-life lobby groups. The company failed to act ethically by overlooking the feelings and the perception of this group of stakeholders. PepsiCo owed the customers an apology following the use of cells from aborted fetuses in its taste testing research. As for World life, most of its problems are not foreseen. The organization is based on religious teachings where they spread the love to the less fortunate in society through humanitarian support. For such an organization that does not discriminate stakeholders and beneficiaries, it is ironical that some of its top managers would engage in corruption. This is because they are well remunerated, and yet they are leading an evangelical based organization that helps the needy. It is ironical that while the donors make generous contributions to help the needy, there are other people who are not needy physically but mentally. It beats logic to find out that a top manager who has a promising career and is highly regarded in the society would engage in such demeaning acts (Reddy, & Appannaiah, 2010). By diverting help that was meant for the needy, the officials failed to act ethically. The organization could have done very little to curb such actions as those were personal decisions on the part of the individuals to engage in corrupt practices. By failing to impact positively on the needy, the officials failed in their work, and they are to blame entirely for their actions. The organization ought not to suffer damage in its reputation for the mistakes of the few selfish individuals. World Vision owed the donors an apology and a re-assurance that such cases would not be repeated elsewhere shortly. The organization also owed the needy citizens of those countries the promised relief food and other supplies as they had depended on the relief to improve their living standards. The organization should have taken the necessary steps to ensure that such selfish officials are prosecuted in a bid to deter others from engaging in corruption. Critique for World Vision This is an organization whose objectives are based on pluralistic deontology. In this approach to ethics, the organization has to apply the seven duties before deciding which duty to act upon. The seven duties include justice, improvement of character, the fulfillment of promises, self-improvement, gratitude, non-maleficence, and reparation (Hooker, 2012). The organization, being an evangelical based firm has a duty to provide for the needy as enshrined in its objectives. In doing, is it seeks to fulfill its promise to impact positively on the needy by providing them with the basic amenities such as food, shelter, clothing, water and education. The organization plays a humanitarian role in countries and regions that have been hit by a humanitarian crisis. The organization shows gratitude to its donors by thanking them for their generous donations. It also offers self-improvement programs through sponsorship to the needy students. This self-improvement offers these children a chance to rise against poverty by giving them hope for a better future. These children later grow up and become successful people in the society. Upon finding out that some of its officials were guilty of corruption, the organization ought to have played a reparation duty. This would have ensured that the needy people who were meant to benefit from the diverted foodstuff and other supplies have received these donations. The organization's corrupt officials must have learned how to apply the utilitarianism approach to getting rich. They did not mind about the needy people when they diverted the relief foodstuff by selling it for monetary gains. This approach is not the best for the organization. The most suitable approach is the pluralism deontology. Critique for PepsiCo This is an organization that takes the utilitarianism approach to ethics. The company does not seem to mind a lot about the perception of its customers. The management of the company knew that some of its customers were pro-life yet it gave the research a green light to use the cells from aborted fetuses. Although they knew that some of the customers would not accept this, they still went ahead with their plans. To them, the end justifies the means. Thus, the management does not care what method the company will use to reach its destination. They are ready to fly, walk, run, crawl, cycle or to drive as long as they reach their destination. This approach is dangerous as it shows the lack of tolerance for other people's views. The company is not tolerant to the religious views, and that is why it distanced itself from the claims that it was supporting abortion. By doing so, the company showed utter disregard for human life. The company also seems to have taken the moral relativism approach to its ethical issues (Baghramian, 2004). By failing to consider the feelings of the religious customers, the company must have intended that the different stakeholders have different perceptions about abortion (Lukes, 2008). Their hope was that the few who were opposed to abortion would not voice their concern for fear of being the minority. The managers must have been shocked following widespread criticism by Christian lobby groups for a boycott of the company's products. The moral relativism and utilitarianism approaches are not the best for this organization. The most suitable approach would be pluralism deontology. Running an ethical business means taking into consideration the views of the various stakeholders to ensure equitable treatment and inclusivity for all (Carroll, & Buchholtz, 2003). It means following due diligence and care to protect and uphold best practices in the specific profession as well as for the sake of the organization (Cory, 2005). The best way that these two organizations can ensure ethics is by considering the power of diversity and the needs of all the stakeholder and addressing how to meet these needs. References Baghramian, M. (2004). Relativism. London: Routledge. Carroll, A., & Buchholtz, A. (2003). Business & society: Ethics and stakeholder management (5th ed.). Mason, Ohio: Thomson/South-Western. Cory, J. (2005). Activist business ethics. Boston: Kluwer Academic ;. Hoang, P. (2007). Business & management. Melton, Vic.: IBID Press. Hooker, B. (2012). Developing deontology new essays in ethical theory. Malden, MA: Wiley, Blackwell. Lukes, S. (2008). Moral relativism. New York: Picador. Reddy, P., & Appannaiah, H. (2010). Business management (Rev. ed.). Mumbai [India: Himalaya Pub. House. Roth, J. (2005). Ethics (Rev. ed.). Pasadena, Calif.: Salem Press. Sen, M. (2008). Business management. Jaipur, India: Oxford Book. Paliwal, M. (2006). Business ethics. New Delhi: New Age International.