Two weeks ago, my husband became the first fully vaccinated member of our household. By virtue of being over 40 he gets protected from a deadly pandemic, and he got what has come to be thought of in Australia (though not without controversy) as the 'good' vaccine - the coveted Pfizer. In my 30s, I don't know when I will be lucky enough to join him. But it's fair, I think, to prioritise those more at risk of getting COVID, or more at risk of severe health effects from COVID. When resources are scarce you must draw the line somewhere. Then people start talking about a "vaccine passport" - the ability to flash their vaccination certificates and not be subject to lockdown border restrictions. It is harder to see that as fair. Those at the head of the queue don't have any greater need to travel interstate to see their families, go on holidays and work trips. How could a vaccine passport be fair when so many people desperate to get a vaccine are unable to get one, at least for now? If this were an inequality stemming from choice, it would be an easier case to make. In a world where the unvaccinated are so by choice, as is increasingly the case in places like the US and Europe, the privileges given to those who have been vaccinated - or withheld from the unvaccinated - are part of that choice. To enter a nightclub, crowded sports event or a Bruce Springsteen concert you need a jab. The difference in freedoms is something to weigh up when deciding the pros and cons of vaccination. However, before we reach that milestone, while I might feel frustrated at the widening gap between myself and those lucky enough to be vaccinated, I know that it is still wrong to oppose vaccine passports in Australia. Fairness is a very slippery concept. Do we treat everyone the same or give priority to those who are worse off? Do we factor in whether someone is worse off because of choices they have made? And even if it is unfair to bring in a vaccine passport system before everyone has had the opportunity to get fully vaccinated, is this a good reason to oppose it? Not every remedy for unfairness will be moral. When we think of addressing unfairness we tend to think of 'levelling up'. If male salaries exceed those of women, for example, we feel that women should be paid more to match them. MGT10002 - Critical Thinking in Management We cannot always do this, though. Sometimes to improve the lives of the worst off, you take something from the better off. For example: the redistribution of wealth through tax: the rich pay more so that the poor have more. The appropriate amount of redistribution might be contested, but it still has the great value of leaving those the worst off better off. But to oppose vaccine passports because of unfairness is a different remedy: levelling down. The unfairness or inequality cannot be removed by helping the worst off, so instead you worsen things for the best off. Levelling down leaves no one better off, and some people a lot worse off. Consider the so-called "sleep elite": the lucky 1 per cent like Margaret Thatcher or former Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer who inherited the ability to function perfectly well on four-hours sleep a night. Their extra four waking hours over most of us likely contributed to their success. But we can't genetically alter everyone to get by on less sleep - there is no way to 'level up' here. Would it be ethical to prevent Mayer from getting anything done for four hours a day to enforce a level playing field? What would this achieve? The case against levelling down by blocking vaccine passports is made even stronger by the fact that those unable to get them would still be better off. Giving privileges to those who are vaccinated increase jab uptake. Higher vaccine uptake reduces the risk of COVID for everyone, and societies can open up earlier. As this year has acutely demonstrated, the value of COVID vaccines is so much more than just health. We see this in the increasing number of countries that are only opening up international travel to the vaccinated, and those that are preventing their unvaccinated citizens and residents from living as they once did - going to nightclubs, museums, big sports events. We have seen this in Australia too where, despite recent outbreaks, the options haven't been to vaccinate or face extreme public health outcomes, but rather to vaccinate or continue to shut ourselves off from the rest of the world. Prioritising vaccinations on the basis of medical vulnerability and risk makes moral sense. Not opening up borders and crowded events to unvaccinated people at high risk of spreading COVID in the middle of a pandemic makes moral sense. Granting privileges to the vaccinated that encourage others to get vaccinated, increasing the protection for everyone, makes moral sense. Preventing others from having something just because we can't have it, as unfair as that may feel, is not justifiable. Dr Cressida Gaukroger; The Age July 28th, 2021 MGT10002 - Critical Thinking in Management Questions for Section B

1) If the Australian Government /Health Authorities could be aligned to the justifications of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in their response to a potential decision on vaccination passports, how would you advise them? Discuss two justifications which is moral obligation and sustanability (4 marks