Purpose Of Assignment: The Purpose Of This Assignment 382572
Purpose Of Assignmentthe Purpose Of This Assignment Is To Analyze The
The purpose of this assignment is to analyze the duties of administrative agencies and the ethics behind regulatory compliance requirements. You are provided with a scenario involving ethical dilemmas faced by an employee at a manufacturing plant concerning regulatory compliance and corporate misconduct.
Paper For Above instruction
The scenario presented involves Eric, an Assistant Vice President at a marine paint manufacturing plant, uncovering an internal study indicating that the company's paint leaches toxins into the marine environment, harming marine life and causing birth defects. The company's President instructs the Vice President to erase all evidence of the study and to keep the matter confidential. This situation raises important questions regarding regulatory oversight, ethical responsibilities, and potential actions Eric should take.
The primary regulatory authority overseeing compliance for a company involved in manufacturing chemicals and environmental impact is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA enforces regulations such as the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA), which aim to minimize environmental hazards associated with industrial products (Kollman, 2018). Under these regulations, companies are legally obliged to report hazardous substances and to avoid activities that could harm the environment. The EPA's role extends to monitoring compliance and penalizing violations, especially those involving concealment of environmental risks (Finkel, 2019). Given the situation, the company's actions of attempting to erase evidence and suppress findings violate federal statutes and EPA regulations designed to protect marine ecosystems.
Beyond regulatory concerns, ethical considerations are paramount. The President's decision to erase evidence and silence disclosure constitutes scientific misconduct and breaches ethical standards of honesty, transparency, and corporate responsibility. Ethical principles outlined by existing frameworks, such as the American Chemical Society's (ACS) code of ethics, emphasize the obligation to report environmental hazards and to prioritize public and environmental health over corporate interests (Hernando & García, 2017). Concealing evidence of environmental harm not only endangers marine life but also exposes the company and its employees to legal liabilities and reputational damage. Ethically, employees like Eric face a moral dilemma: comply with illegal directives or act in accordance with ethical standards that promote environmental integrity and public safety.
Considering his position and ethical responsibilities, Eric must evaluate his options. One course of action is whistleblowing—reporting the misconduct externally, potentially to environmental agencies like the EPA or to media outlets. Whistleblowing can be legally protected under statutes such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act, which provide protections for employees exposing corporate wrongdoing (Near & Miceli, 2016). Alternatively, Eric could first attempt internal reporting through anonymous channels or to other trusted executives to seek resolution without immediate external consequences. However, if internal means are blocked or ignored, external whistleblowing appears necessary to uphold environmental laws and ethical standards.
In conclusion, the governing agency likely to oversee regulatory compliance in this case is the EPA, which enforces statutes aimed at environmental protection. Ethically, the company’s attempt to conceal hazardous evidence violates principles of honesty and corporate responsibility. Eric faces a moral obligation to prioritize public and environmental health, which suggests that whistleblowing is the ethically justifiable course of action. Upholding environmental safety and legal compliance ultimately benefits society and safeguards Eric’s integrity and conscience.
References
- Finkel, A. (2019). Environmental regulation and corporate accountability. Journal of Environmental Law, 31(2), 245-272.
- Hernando, M., & García, J. (2017). Ethics in chemical industries: The role of professional codes of conduct. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(2), 365-378.
- Kollman, K. (2018). Environmental political theory and policy analysis. Routledge.
- Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (2016). Whistle-blowing and organizational justice: An ethical dilemma. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26(2), 251–281.