Discrimination and inequality is not unknown to the African Continent. South African Apartheid laws were a prime example of how discrimination was entrenched in the legal system. The ethical nature of these laws was questionable as they were employed to marginalise people and directly discriminate against them based on ethnicity. Even though the spirit of a new democratic South Africa prevails, it is not always applied with undiluted enthusiasm, especially in the workplace. It can be stated that discrimination still exists against minorities in the workplace, in particular against woman and most prominently against people infected and affected by HIV and AIDS.

It could be argued that discrimination and inequality are not only the products of apartheid laws but is highly influenced by complex social dynamics as observed in all societies across the world. Of particular interest are the roles and responsibilities assigned to different genders in the community and at home. Specific gender roles are often stereotyped and therefore fraught with the possibility of discrimination. The latter often expresses itself in the modern workplace. Women are often employed in positions where they have limited authority and therefore limited influence on the decision-making process of the corporation. It could be said that the corporation by its very nature is patriarchal, and therefore conflicts with the needs and aspirations of its female employees. It could be argued further that the inherent discrimination against employees infected and affected by HIV and AIDS is highlighted by the aforementioned attitude.

Loven (1997) argues that the lack of a positive response to prevent and even eliminate discrimination against employees infected and affected by HIV and AIDS, may be due to traditional thinking and the inability of individuals within organisations to act within the framework of corporate ethics and morals. Lover further states that companies may fail to create and limit opportunities for corporate societies to work collaboratively by not providing an interpretative framework as a set of rules and / or policy guidelines. Steven Weller (as cited in Loven, 1997) concurs with Loven’s sentiment and suggests that most codes of conduct are for “protective self-interest”, rather than social development. It may therefore be argued that the protection of the rights and interests of groups who are directly and / or indirectly affected by discrimination and inequalities due to the impact of HIV and AIDS in the workplace, may be based on self-interest only. The corporation and / or organisation should be viewed in this context, not only as an autonomous (individual) moral agent (Furrow. 2005, p. 20), but also as a possible ethical egoist.