Scenario Eric Is An Assistant Vice President At Marine Paint

Scenarioeric Is An Assistant Vice President At Marine Paint Manufactu

Scenario: Eric is an Assistant Vice President at marine paint manufacturing plant. One day, he accidentally discovers an email from his boss, the Vice President, to the President, notifying him of an internal study finding the paint leeches from the bottom of boats into the marine environment. The paint has been found to create birth defects in marine life. He also sees the President's response email, in which he directs the Vice President to erase all evidence of the study and tell no one. The President also directs the Vice President to erase the email. Eric is concerned about the findings of the study, but he also fears losing his job. Create a 350- to 700-word analysis with the following information: Which administrative agency governs regulatory compliance of the manufacturer? What are the ethical concerns regarding the President's actions, and what do you believe Eric should do? Cite a minimum of two peer-reviewed references. Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines.

Paper For Above instruction

The scenario involving Eric, the Assistant Vice President at a marine paint manufacturing plant, highlights significant ethical and regulatory considerations related to environmental compliance and corporate responsibility. Central to addressing these issues is understanding the role of regulatory agencies overseeing environmental safety and corporate ethics, the ethical implications of the President’s directive to conceal damaging information, and the appropriate course of action for Eric to uphold ethical standards while managing personal risk.

Regulatory Agency Governing Compliance

The primary regulatory agency overseeing the environmental compliance of marine paint manufacturers in the United States is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA enforces laws such as the Clean Water Act (CWA), which aims to prevent pollutant discharge into water bodies, and is responsible for regulating chemicals and materials that have the potential to harm marine environments (U.S. EPA, 2020). Specifically, under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the EPA evaluates and manages risks associated with chemical substances used in manufacturing products like marine paints. If evidence shows that a product is leaching toxins detrimental to marine life, the EPA has the authority to impose sanctions, require corrective measures, or ban the use of such substances to protect ecosystems and public health.

Ethical Concerns Regarding the President’s Actions

The President’s directive to erase all evidence of the internal study and instructing the Vice President to conceal damaging findings raise substantial ethical concerns. Foremost is the issue of corporate transparency and integrity. Concealing scientific evidence that implicates the company in environmental harm violates ethical standards that emphasize honesty, accountability, and respect for environmental stewardship (Karaibrahimoglu & Oztaysi, 2016). Furthermore, suppressing such information endangers public trust and contravenes legal obligations to disclose material risks and environmental impacts.

Additionally, such concealment may lead to legal repercussions, including violations of environmental laws and regulations, which could result in fines, lawsuits, and damage to the company’s reputation. Morally, the suppression of critical environmental data reflects prioritization of corporate profit over ecological and public health, undermining societal values of responsibility and ethical governance. Ethical frameworks such as utilitarianism would argue that transparency maximizes overall good by allowing regulatory bodies and the public to make informed decisions, whereas concealment could cause greater harm in the long run.

What Should Eric Do?

Eric faces a complex ethical dilemma: whether to comply with the President’s directive, risking legal and moral repercussions, or to act in accordance with ethical principles and legal obligations. Given the gravity of the findings—namely, the potential for birth defects in marine life and environmental harm—Eric should consider his moral responsibility to act truthfully. One course of action is to seek advice from an internal ethics committee or legal counsel, which can provide guidance on how to proceed without violating laws or ethical standards.

If internal channels prove unhelpful or if Eric fears retaliation, whistleblowing becomes an ethical obligation. Whistleblowing involves reporting wrongdoings to external authorities like the EPA or environmental watchdog organizations to ensure the violation is addressed. Protections for whistleblowers exist under laws such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and other whistleblower statutes, which aim to safeguard employees from retaliation for exposing corporate misconduct (Near & Miceli, 2016). In this context, whistleblowing would serve to protect the environment, public health, and uphold principles of honesty and accountability.

Ultimately, Eric's decision should be guided by a commitment to environmental integrity, regulatory compliance, and ethical conduct. While personal job security is a concern, long-term societal and environmental benefits outweigh short-term career risks. Ethical action might require courageous steps, but it aligns with professional integrity and legal obligations.

Conclusion

In summary, the EPA is the primary regulatory authority overseeing compliance for marine paint manufacturing. The President’s plan to conceal damaging study results raises serious ethical issues concerning honesty, transparency, and environmental responsibility. Eric, as an ethical professional, should consider reporting the findings through appropriate channels, either internally or externally, to uphold environmental laws and ethical standards. Acting with integrity ultimately contributes to sustainable corporate practices and societal trust.

References

  • Karaibrahimoglu, M., & Oztaysi, B. (2016). Ethical Decision-Making in Business: Analyzing Corporate Social Responsibility Through the Lens of Stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(2), 211-232.
  • Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (2016). Whistle-blowing: Myth and Reality. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1119-1140.
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2020). Summary of the Clean Water Act (CWA). https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act
  • U.S. EPA. (2020). Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-toxic-substances-control-act
  • Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits. The New York Times Magazine.
  • Robertson, D. C. (2014). Ethical dilemmas in environmental regulation. Environmental Politics, 23(2), 202-220.
  • Hartman, L. P., & DesJardins, J. R. (2011). Business Ethics: Decision Making for Personal Integrity and Social Responsibility. McGraw-Hill Education.
  • Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L. J., & Matten, D. (2014). Contesting the Value of "Creating Shared Value". California Management Review, 56(2), 130-146.
  • Van de Veeg, V., & Roe, M. (2017). Corporate Ethical Responsibility and Environmental Sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(2), 321-331.
  • Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. Harper & Brothers.

Related Assignments