According to stakeholder theory, stakeholders are divided into internal and external groups according to the particular interests they have in a specific situation. Employees, managers, and shareholders are examples of internal stakeholders. All have a direct interest in the prosperity and financial stability of the company. Employees value fair wages, job security, and a healthy work environment (Kovács, 2022). Achieving organizational goals, increasing productivity, and maintaining the competitiveness of the business are the concerns of managers. Financial interests are the primary motivators for shareholders, prioritizing stock value increases, dividend payments, and profitability.
Governmental agencies, vendors, customers, and local communities are examples of external stakeholders. Customers seek high-quality goods and services, reasonable pricing, and first-rate customer support (Hickman & Akdere, 2019). While suppliers have a stake in getting regular orders and timely payments, government agencies place a higher priority on tax income and regulatory compliance. Local communities place a strong emphasis on CSR programs that advance environmental sustainability, benefit society, and provide job opportunities. To make wise choices and have good connections with these numerous groups, firms must understand these varied stakeholder issues.
Segment stakeholder/s into meaningful categories.
Understanding stakeholders’ varied interests and concerns is facilitated by categorizing them into meaningful groups, made possible by stakeholder theory. The categories of internal and external stakeholders may be separated mainly by these groups.
Internal stakeholders are those people or groups that work for the organization and are directly touched by its choices and operations. This group consists of management, stockholders, and workers. Concerns among employees include a positive work atmosphere, fair salary, and job security (Kovács, 2022). Achieving organizational objectives, increasing productivity, and maintaining the competitiveness of the business are the top priorities for managers. Shareholders give financial interests, including profitability, dividends, and stock value growth, a top priority.
People, groups, or communities outside the corporation that are impacted by its decisions and have the power to shape its future are considered external stakeholders. Governmental agencies, vendors, customers, and local communities fall under this group (JD, 2023). Customers look for high-quality items, reasonable prices, and first-rate customer service. Governmental organizations prioritize tax income and adherence to regulations (Hickman & Akdere, 2019). While local communities seek corporate social responsibility initiatives that benefit society, create employment, and exhibit environmental responsibility, suppliers are interested in regular orders and on-time payments. Businesses may better adjust their strategy to satisfy the distinct requirements and expectations of each category by classifying stakeholders in this way.
Priorities stakeholder/s along the three factors of power, legitimacy, and urgency
To prioritize stakeholders and make well-informed judgments, it is necessary to evaluate each one’s authority, legitimacy, and urgency. These variables are essential for identifying the stakeholders who must be attended to immediately. High-priority stakeholders have a powerful combination of speed, legality, and power. Government authorities, influential owners, and essential clientele are often among these stakeholders (Hickman & Akdere, 2019). They control a large amount of the organization’s decision-making, have a genuine interest in what happens to the company, and often need to be addressed right away since they might negatively affect the company’s earnings and image. Businesses may protect their interests and keep good relations by swiftly resolving client complaints.
Stakeholders with a medium level of importance display two or more attributes: urgency, legitimacy, or power. Workers, suppliers, and local communities may fall under this group. Even though these stakeholders may not have the same immediate impact or level of urgency as high-priority stakeholders, their issues need to be handled carefully (Kovács, 2022). Companies may preserve solid relationships with their suppliers and provide a good working environment and sustainable supply chains by carefully attending to their demands.
Conversely, low-priority stakeholders have either one or none of these traits. These stakeholders may not need to be attended to right away, such as weaker interest groups or organizations with less sway over the business (Davis & Barnes, 2022). Businesses may efficiently deploy resources and concentrate their efforts when recognizing these disparities. Companies may improve stakeholder relations and overall company sustainability by prioritizing their efforts and investing resources where most are required by identifying the different degrees of influence and urgency among stakeholders.
Who is/are the critical stakeholder/s, and why?
An organization, initiative, or project’s ability to succeed depends mainly on its critical stakeholders, who include various organizations and individuals, including employees, customers, investors, government officials, and the local community. These parties are deeply invested in the project’s success and influence several areas, such as operations, economics, legality, and social impact (Davis & Barnes, 2022). Their impact may determine the course of the project; organizations must understand and interact with them successfully.
First and first, employees are essential internal stakeholders. Their commitment and expertise drive the company’s everyday operations (JD, 2023). Ensuring their well-being and addressing concerns fosters a healthy work environment that promotes innovation and increases output. Happy employees create a productive workplace that encourages teamwork and general corporate growth.
Second, customers are essential outside stakeholders. Their opinions and preferences have a direct impact on new service offers and product development. Businesses may enhance revenue, develop a strong brand reputation, and cultivate consumer loyalty by comprehending their demands and providing outstanding experiences (Kovács, 2022). Happy customers often become brand ambassadors, drawing in more business via favorable word-of-mouth.
Important stakeholders also include the local community, government, and investors. Investors provide money, which promotes innovation and corporate growth. Positive interactions with regulatory bodies guarantee legal compliance and protect the business’s operations (Davis & Barnes, 2022). Working together with the community fosters social justice and ethical corporate citizenship.
What ethical approaches/es to decision-making are applied by Bancel and the Senate HELP Committee? Give supporting evidence from the case.
The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee and Bancel, the CEO of Moderna, use several ethical frameworks when deciding on the COVID-19 pandemic. Bancel and Moderna have mostly embraced a utilitarian strategy motivated by business. To optimize the entire benefit to society, they emphasize the development and dissemination of their COVID-19 vaccine, especially about public health and economic recovery. Their main goal is to create an effective vaccination to benefit the most significant number of people possible. Moderna’s quick work on developing and distributing vaccines, which helped combat the worldwide epidemic, is one piece of evidence from the case.
This strategy has drawn criticism, however, for putting financial gain ahead of fair vaccination availability. For instance, the exorbitant cost of the Moderna vaccination has sparked questions regarding accessibility in low-income nations. Opponents contend that this strategy could make the disparities in global health worse. Conversely, it seems that the Senate HELP Committee has a more vital deontological ethical perspective. They place a strong emphasis on maintaining moral standards, ethical norms, and the significance of distributing vaccines fairly. The committee’s deeds, which include looking into vaccination costs and supporting affordability and openness, demonstrate its adherence to moral obligations and ethical standards.
Furthermore, by emphasizing innovation and research, Bancel and Moderna have shown aspects of virtue ethics. They see using their resources and skills to create their mRNA vaccine as a way to have a good impact on society. The success of the vaccination has been greatly attributed to their dedication to research and development. In contrast, the Senate HELP Committee seems to take a rights-based ethical stance in supporting vaccination availability as a fundamental right. This aligns with a moral view based on fairness; they want to ensure that everyone, regardless of financial situation, gets equal access to vaccination.
In summary, the ethical perspective of Bancel and Moderna is primarily practical, emphasizing the broader good of society as a whole via the creation and dissemination of vaccines. On the other hand, the Senate HELP Committee takes a more deontological and rights-based ethical stance, emphasizing fair vaccination access while respecting moral standards and fundamental rights. These divergent methods demonstrate the difficulty of making moral decisions amid a global health emergency when moral problems often result from the conflict between corporate interests and equal access to vaccinations that may save lives.
Regarding Moderna’s decision to more than quadruple the price of COVID vaccine:
a) Is this fair and just?
The choice made by Moderna to drastically raise the price of the COVID-19 vaccination presents moral questions about justice and fairness. Regarding ethics, being fair is treating people fairly and not taking advantage of difficult circumstances to make money. In the event of a worldwide pandemic, ethical norms place a strong emphasis on the fair allocation of resources, especially vaccines that may save lives. The price of vaccines has increased fourfold, which may make them more expensive for those with lower means, making already existent health inequities worse. Exorbitant prices like this might be considered unjust, particularly in public health emergencies, because mass vaccination campaigns are vital to the health of society as a whole. This may make it more difficult for populations already susceptible to the virus to defend themselves. Regardless of a person’s financial situation, universal accessibility, affordability, and availability of life-saving therapies should be prioritized in ethical concerns. Any choice that departs from these principles might be seen as unfair and unjust, leading to moral problems in the effort to strike a balance between the interests of the general public and corporate profits (Doherty, 2020).
The deeper problems of distributive fairness are inextricably tied to the ethical difficulties surrounding Moderna’s pricing policy. A fundamental moral precept known as distributive justice requires that resources be allocated fairly and equitably. This implies that access to a life-saving vaccination should not depend on one’s capacity to pay outrageous costs. Instead, ethical concerns highlight the need for universal vaccination accessibility, irrespective of an individual’s financial situation. This idea emphasizes how morally necessary it is to balance corporate interests and public health demands. In this instance, Moderna’s choice to increase vaccination pricing by such a large amount calls into question the company’s ethical duty to provide equitable access to the vaccine and its dedication to distributive justice.
This circumstance further emphasizes the moral conflict between corporate profit goals and the interests of the general people. Even if businesses like Moderna are essential to developing vaccines, their moral obligations go beyond making a profit. According to the more comprehensive ethical framework, companies must put the general welfare and public health ahead of excessive financial gain, particularly in times of international health emergency. The ethical dilemma of balancing economic interests and the common good persists, as actions that put profit ahead of fair access to essential resources may be seen as unfair and unjust. To summarize, Moderna’s vaccine price choice highlights the morally complicated issues surrounding distributive justice and the ongoing struggle to balance business interests with the moral need to ensure equity and justice in healthcare accessibility.
If you were Moderna’s CEO, what decision would you make? Justify your proposed decision by explaining how you will optimize value and minimize negative impact for your stakeholders.
If I were Moderna’s CEO, I would take a stand on the ethical issues raised by the vaccine’s price while maximizing value and limiting adverse effects for the company’s stakeholders. First and foremost, I would promise to uphold a fair and open pricing plan for the COVID-19 vaccination. I would make sure the vaccination stays available to as many people as possible by keeping the cost low, therefore optimizing the advantages to the public’s health. This would enhance the company’s long-term image and goodwill in addition to being in line with its aim to promote public health.
I would take a few steps to maximize value and reduce detrimental effects for stakeholders. First, to preserve profitability without significantly boosting prices, I would look at cost-cutting measures that the business may use. This may include reducing manufacturing costs, improving supplier chains, or considering cost-sharing agreements with other governments or organizations. Furthermore, I would collaborate closely with governmental institutions and groups to guarantee the fair distribution of vaccinations, particularly to those most in need. Maintaining good ties with regulatory agencies and obtaining government contracts would both be facilitated by this cooperative approach. Prioritizing accessibility and affordability would allow Moderna to preserve its long-term value for shareholders and the general public while advancing corporate social responsibility and serving the public interest.
References
Davis, T. J., & Barnes, Y. (2022). Who Has a Stake in Today’s College Students?. Multiple Perspectives on College Students: Needs, Challenges, and Opportunities. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=6Nt1EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT57&dq=Using+the+stakeholder+theory:++a)+Identify+stakeholder/s+at+the+generic+level+and+state+what+is+the+stake+for+each+one+of+them&ots=1L8hG-gEhN&sig=MRYZTTFf-PkKQhN3xw9yNOkc7Is
Doherty, R. F. (2020). Ethical dimensions in the health professions-e-book. Elsevier Health Sciences. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=N1cBEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=+What+ethical+approach/es+to+decision+making+&ots=bkIA3kEFaz&sig=oneNUmX2G0migMn6OPfEMjjv2uQ
Hickman, L., & Akdere, M. (2019). Exploring information technology-business alignment through stakeholder theory: a review of literature. Industrial and Commercial Training, 51(4), 228-243. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ICT-11-2018-0098/full/html?casa_token=5IWf1R6oDaQAAAAA:-3PeoSmoVQt6W4IdB1k6Mv-XiN55xn1EWdhL7pA8h1hdVkRaSPX0VPX1W8hbkwBHHnz7HsaW3lQnBXCD3FGk4ka_XNY9l4UbpZvpGTGSyJ1OJHjtXM7Y
JD, D. (2023). Stakeholder Theory. Available at SSRN 4387595. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4387595
Kovács, G. (2022). 20. Stakeholder theory. Handbook of Theories for Purchasing, Supply Chain and Management Research, 310. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=xeRvEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA310&dq=Using+the+stakeholder+theory:++Prioritise+stakeholder/s+along+the+three+factors+of+power,+legitimacy+and+urgency.&ots=nMj-gLEqMy&sig=AipJL6IKfQ83jRB5ZPjMs2XGXC8
write