If your company sponsors an event that helps spread a dangerous disease, are you responsible? If you have the opportunity to postpone the event, or to move it so that it’s less dangerous, should you do so? >>>
LINK: Should Olympic sponsors pull out over the danger of Zika virus? (by Chris MacDonald for Canadian Business)
What should Olympic sponsors and “partners” like Coke and General Electric and Visa do in light of expert recommendations that the Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro be postponed or moved?
Nearly 200 prominent scientists, physicians, and ethicists from around the globe have signed a letter arguing that the 2016 Summer Olympics scheduled to be held in Rio de Janero this August be postponed or moved due to the risks posed by the mosquito-borne Zika virus. The letter is technically addressed to the head of the World Health Organization, urging WHO to conduct a “a fresh, evidence-based assessment” of the risks that Zika poses, and asking WHO to use its powers of persuasion (and its close connection to the International Olympic Committee) to get the IOC to rethink things. In particular, the letter notes the risk implied by having 500,000 athletes and tourists visit Rio and then return home, potentially spreading Zika to every corner of the globe. To date, the WHO for its part seems unmoved.
But the letter omits any mention of the other powerful decision-makers in this situation, namely the corporations that will have their logos splashed all over every moment of the Summer Olympics, regardless of where and when it happens….
What do you think?
Brought to you by:
Business Ethics Highlights 
Recent Comments