Minicase Management 04 Business Ethics Program 1992 Arthur A

Minicase Mgmt 04 Business Ethics Program1992 Arthur Andersen Co

Identify and evaluate the ethical issues presented in the scenario. Discuss the responsibilities of the manager (Bryan), the company's priorities, and the potential long-term consequences of prioritizing financial success over environmental responsibility. Explore the options available to Bryan, including reporting the issue to higher management or the regulatory agency, and analyze the ethical implications of each choice. Conclude with recommendations for ethical decision-making in this context, considering the stakeholder interests, corporate ethics, and environmental stewardship.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical issues presented in the scenario involving Bryan and X Chemical revolve around environmental responsibility, corporate integrity, and long-term stakeholder interests. At the core, Bryan faces a moral dilemma: whether to accept the company's decision to prioritize profit over environmental safety or to act in accordance with his ethical principles by raising concerns about the environmental risks associated with the excess waste discharge. This case exemplifies the tension that often exists in corporate settings where short-term financial gains may conflict with longer-term ethical responsibilities and societal expectations.

Firstly, the responsibility of Bryan as a manager in a large chemical company involves safeguarding not only the company's interests but also those of the community and environment in which it operates. The company's public assertion that it supports environmental protection suggests a facade that may be compromised by internal decisions to cut costs at the expense of ecological safety. The decision to omit the additional waste reduction stage demonstrates a prioritization of immediate economic benefits over potential environmental harm, which raises questions about the company's ethical integrity and transparency.

From an ethical standpoint, this scenario highlights the importance of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Ethical business practices insist that companies should operate in ways that are sustainable and environmentally responsible, even if such actions may initially involve higher costs. The concept of the "triple bottom line" — emphasizing profit, people, and planet — advocates for companies to take into account the broader societal and environmental impacts of their operations. By neglecting the installation of waste reduction technology, X Chemical may achieve short-term profitability but jeopardizes its reputation and long-term viability. Environmental degradation can lead to regulatory penalties, community backlash, and a damaged corporate image, all of which can ultimately harm shareholders' interests.

Bryan’s dilemma involves two primary options: first, to confront the company's decision internally by approaching higher management or regulatory authorities; second, to acquiesce and continue working under the company's directives, thereby risking ethical compromise and future liability. Reporting the issue to higher management or regulatory agencies aligns with the principles of ethical responsibility, transparency, and accountability. Such actions uphold the integrity of the industry and protect public health and the environment, fostering trust among stakeholders, including the community, regulators, and consumers.

Alternatively, choosing silence or complicity might safeguard Bryan’s immediate job security but could result in significant long-term consequences. If environmental harm occurs due to negligent waste disposal, the company could face lawsuits, fines, and damage to its reputation. Moreover, such actions could erode public trust once environmental violations become public, leading to consumer boycotts and stricter regulatory scrutiny. Morally, maintaining silence contradicts the principle of doing what is ethically right and responsible. It also disregards the company's purported commitment to environmental protection, thus undermining its credibility and stakeholder trust.

From a broader perspective, corporate ethical decision-making involves aligning business operations with societal values and legal standards. Hence, Bryan should consider employing ethical frameworks such as Kantian ethics, which emphasize duty and adherence to moral principles, or utilitarianism, which advocate for actions that maximize overall good. Reporting the environmental concerns aligns with Kantian principles by acting in accordance with moral duty, and with utilitarianism by preventing potential widespread environmental harm and societal disapproval.

Ultimately, fostering an ethical culture within organizations requires management to encourage employees like Bryan to voice concerns without fear of retaliation. Companies should implement clear policies and channels for ethical reporting, promote transparency, and prioritize environmental sustainability alongside profitability. Ethical decision-making in such scenarios contributes to long-term corporate success, legal compliance, and the protection of community health and environmental resources.

References

• Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268-295.
• Crane, A., Matten, D., & Spence, L. J. (2013). Corporate social responsibility: Readings and cases in a global context. Routledge.
• Hartman, L. P., DesJardins, J., & MacDonald, C. (2014). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Jennings, M. M. (2010). Business ethics: Case studies and selected readings. Cengage Learning.
• Keith, N. (2011). Business ethics: A stakeholder and issues management approach. Routledge.
• Markovits, A. (2010). The ethics of environmental sustainability. Environmental Values, 19(4), 451-469.
• Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2008). Integrating ethics and compliance: The Business and Society approach. Business and Society, 47(2), 161-171.
• Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225-243.
• Werhane, P. H., & Freeman, R. E. (2003). Business ethics: Ethical decision making and cases. Pearson Education.
• Worth, M. J. (2010). Foundations of business ethics. Cengage Learning.