Two of the ethical theories we introduced in lesson one were theories of human rights and principles of justice or fairness. In this lesson, we will apply these to stakeholder theory and to the Bayer Crop Science case. [MUSIC] Let's pursue stakeholder theory a little further again with Bayer Crop Science in mind and look at the rights and justices that are at stake in this thing. So let's remember rights talk. And that is do human beings have basic rights? And I think most of us would say they do. Do they have rights to welfare, to a livable environment, to drug treatment, for example, in river blindness? So the question is, do corporations have obligations to respect human rights? And that is very interesting. And that has been challenged by a new, been argued by a new UN documentary called the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. And for those of you interested, I recommend that you read that. It's brand new since 2012, wrote by a professor named John Ruggie at Harvard. And in that document the document argued that corporations have obligations to respect human rights wherever they're operating. It doesn't matter where they're operating. So one of those would be to respect children and respect and not have child labor. Now that, by the way that document is voluntary, obviously. Companies don't have to adhere to it, but it is a very general document and it is has been read very widely. So with rights talk, well, how do stakeholders and stakeholder theory link to rights talk? The idea is that every individual and every organization, because organizations are made up of human beings, well, that's obvious. They all have rights because they're all made up of human beings. And we have to respect those. So then the argument is individuals and organizations have obligations to respect those rights or not to further violate them. Now that brings us Bayer Crop Science because the rights here that are at stake are the rights of Indian farmers to make choices and run their lives according to Indian tradition. And that conflicts with rights of children not to be forced to work and rights of children to go to school. And those are obvious. But the real difficult question here is what is Bayer Crop Science's obligation? Do they have obligations to all of these, and they have obligations to their shareholders, obviously. Do they have obligations to the mission of Bayer, and how does that all work? I mean look, these are all conflicting with each other. This is a mess, to put a not too fine a touch on this. Now, let's return to our ideal of justice that we discussed in the last module and see how that applies to Bayer Crop Science. Justice, as we just discussed and/or fairness applies both of the processes I engage in and to the outcomes. So a process is fair if it treats everybody impartially and as equals. And the process and the procedure is fair if everybody gets what's due, what's owed to them in the context. In Bayer Crop Science case, are we treating all those children as equals? And are we treating, respecting, the Indian farmers and the context in which they operate, and have been operating for centuries. And the outcomes are unfair if we're not treating, if we're not respecting equal rights. And if they create a balance of harms over benefits. This case is difficult because although child labor is not treating those children fairly, it is creating a balance of benefits for the farmers and their families, frankly. And if they stop child labor, can they possibly get a balance of benefits versus harms, and be fair to all the shareholders? [MUSIC]