Capital Budgeting Precision Machines Data November De 711512

Capital Budgetingprecision Machinesdatanovemberdecemberjanuaryfebruar

Capital Budgeting Precision Machines Data: November December January February March April May June Cost of borrowing 10.00% Minimum Cash Balance $5,000 Beginning Cash Balance $7,500 Revenues (Sales) $40,000 $50,000 $48,000 $55,000 $35,000 $50,000 $65,000 $40,000 Materials Purchases Cash Collections November December January February March April May June First Month (30%) Second Month (35%) Third Month (35%) Total Collections Cash Disbursements Material Purchases Salaries $6,000.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $6,000.00 Wages $3,000.00 $35,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,200.00 $3,500.00 $3,000.00 Other Expenses Capital Expenditure $25,000.00 Dividends $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Interest Total Disbursements Cash flows Net cash flows Cumulative cash flows Minimum Cash Balance Cash Surplus or Deficit Recommendations: Case Study WHISTLEBLOWING & THE ENVIRONMENT: THE CASE OF AVCO ENVIRONMENTAL Chantale Leroux works as a clerk for Avco Environmental Services, a small toxic-waste disposal company. The company has a contract to dispose of medical waste from a local hospital. During the course of her work, Chantale comes across documents that suggest that Avco has actually been disposing of some of this medical waste in a local municipal landfill. Chantale is shocked. She knows that the Environmental Protection Agency has banned the disposing of hazardous waste in ordinary landfill. Such waste requires special treatment. And even though only a small portion of the medical waste that Avco handles is being disposed of this way, any amount at all seems a worrisome threat to public health. Chantale gathers together the appropriate documents and takes them to her immediate superior, Dave Lamb. Dave says, "Look, I don't think that sort of thing is your concern, or mine. We're in charge of record-keeping, not making decisions about where this stuff gets dumped. I suggest you drop it." The next day, Chantale decides to go one step further, and talks to Angela van Wilgenburg, the company's Operations Manager. Angela is clearly irritated. Angela says, "This isn't your concern. Look, these are the sorts of cost-cutting moves that let a little company like ours compete with our giant competitors. Besides, everyone knows that the regulations in this area are overly cautious. There's no real danger to anyone from the tiny amount of medical waste that 'slips' into the municipal dump. I consider this matter closed." Chantale considers her situation. The message from her superiors was loud and clear. She strongly suspects that making further noises about this issue could jeopardize her job. Further, she generally has faith in the company's management. They've always seemed like honest, trustworthy people. But she was troubled by this apparent disregard for public safety. On the other hand, she asks herself whether maybe Angela was right in arguing that the danger was minimal. Chantale consulted an old friend who is in charge of the environmental column of a local newspaper. Her friend told her that some environmental groups have expressed concerns over this issue and have started to monitor several places around the country. Study Questions: Write a roughly 500-word (one to two pages typed) essay in analyzing this scenario. Quality of writing is a substantial consideration in the amount of credit given. A. Who are the stakeholders who are/will be affected in this scenario? B. What are the ethical issues that are involved? Be sure to distinguish between issues that are primarily right-and-wrong (e.g., ethical or moral lapses) versus those that are right-and-right issues in which there are simply tough trade-offs of appropriate competing values. C. What recommendations do you have in how the situation could be/should have been resolved? OR, state if no resolution is necessary and the reasons why the status quo is acceptable.

Paper For Above instruction

The case involving Chantale Leroux at Avco Environmental Services presents a compelling ethical dilemma rooted in corporate responsibility, environmental stewardship, and personal integrity. This analysis will identify the key stakeholders affected by the situation, explore the ethical issues involved, and propose potential resolutions or justify the maintenance of the status quo based on morality and business considerations.

Stakeholders involved in this case are multifaceted. Firstly, the local community and the environment are directly impacted by the improper disposal of medical waste. If hazardous waste is indeed being dumped in municipal landfills without proper treatment, it endangers public health as well as ecosystems, contributing to pollution and potential disease outbreaks. Secondly, the hospital transferring waste bears responsibility in ensuring safe disposal. Third, the employees and management of Avco, including Chantale, Dave, and Angela, face ethical and professional consequences depending on their actions. Investors and regulators such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also have a stake in maintaining standards and enforcing environmental protections. Lastly, broader society benefits from companies that adhere to ethical practices, as public trust in environmental regulations is critical for sustainable development.

Ethical issues in this scenario center on the degree of responsibility and moral obligation companies have to safeguard public health and comply with environmental laws. The primary moral lapse appears to be corporate cover-up or negligence predicated on cost-cutting motives. Angela's assertion that regulations are overly cautious raises questions about regulatory compliance versus regulatory caps meant to prevent environmental harm. This presents a classic right-and-wrong dilemma: is it morally acceptable for a company to circumvent legal standards for short-term profit, risking long-term public safety? From an ethical standpoint, disregarding EPA mandates breaches principles of corporate social responsibility and integrity. Conversely, some might argue that if the potential harm is minimal, then economic considerations and competitive pressures might justify marginal violations—though this is ethically tenuous.

The issue also involves right-and-right trade-offs: balancing economic competitiveness against environmental health. Angela’s perspective that cost savings confer a competitive edge reflects a common business dilemma where profit motives clash with environmental ethics. Chantale’s dilemma, as an employee witnessing potentially illegal activity, places her in a conflict between loyalty to her employer and her moral obligation to protect public safety. Her decision to potentially escalate concerns reflects higher ethical standards, but also risks personal repercussions, highlighting the tension inherent in such dilemmas.

Resolutions or recommendations include fostering an ethical corporate culture grounded in transparency and compliance. The company should conduct an internal investigation and review disposal procedures to ensure adherence to EPA regulations. Implementing strict monitoring and accountability systems would demonstrate corporate social responsibility, reducing the likelihood of illegal dumping. In addition, whistleblower protections should be strengthened to empower employees like Chantale to report unethical or illegal practices without fear of retaliation.

Furthermore, external oversight by regulatory bodies must be rigorous and proactive. Public disclosure of disposal practices in compliance with environmental laws would rebuild community trust and reduce the risk of legal penalties. Management should also prioritize environmental safety over short-term cost reduction, recognizing that sustainability and ethical integrity ultimately support long-term profitability and reputation.

In conclusion, this case exemplifies the importance of ethical vigilance in corporate environmental practices. Companies must balance economic concerns with their moral duties to protect public health and uphold laws. Employees and management need to foster an organizational environment where doing the right thing is valued more than short-term gains, ensuring that compliance and integrity are at the forefront of corporate operations.

References

• Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268-295.
• Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine.
• Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-intensive survey. Academy of Management Journal, 34(2), 301-332.
• Lubin, D. A., & Estler, K. (2010). Environmental and social responsibility in the oil industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 89-98.
• Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2006). Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society: A relational perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 99-115.
• Parmar, B. L., et al. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 403–445.
• Roberts, R. W. (1992). Determining the socially responsible course of action: An ethical decision-making model. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(8), 615-631.
• Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: A three-domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(04), 503-530.
• Werhane, P. H., & Freeman, R. E. (1999). Principles for ethical business practice. Business and Society, 38(3), 262-267.
• Windsor, D. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Three key ethical issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 67, 27-36.