What Are The Ethical Issues In The Case? Identify The 715414

what Isare The Ethical Issues In The Case Identify The Issues

What is/are the ethical issue(s) in the case? •Identify the issue(s) in a couple of sentences. This is short and concise. •Briefly, in your own words and in a couple of sentences, why is it an issue? • What ethical models are relevant to the issue? For ethical models, consider those discussed in class, for example, utilitarianism, rights, justice, and fairness. • (Question 1 is the first paragraph of your case analysis. It sets the stage for your analysis. (This section of the paper should be one half to one page.)

What are the pertinent facts of the case? • Distinguish between more important and less important facts. • Include as a fact if a code of ethics is available to guide the actors in the case. (Company code of ethics? Industry or profession code of ethics?) Also include as a fact if specific laws or regulatory standards are involved in the case. • These facts must be the foundation for your alternatives and recommendations. • (This section of the paper should be one half to one page.)

Stakeholders, harms, benefits, and rights • Who are the important stakeholders in the case? • So far in the case, who has been harmed? In what ways? Who has received benefits? What specific benefits were received? • So far in the case, whose rights or what rights have been exercised? How? Whose rights or what rights have been denied? How? • Frame the harms, benefits, and rights in terms of where things stand in the case right now. Later, in analysis of alternatives (Question 5), you’ll discuss possible future effects on stakeholders. • Primary and secondary stakeholders are discussed in the first chapters in the text and listed on a class handout. • (This section of the paper should be one half to one page.)

What are the alternative courses of action to remedy the problem that you have identified? Who must act in each alternative? • Provide three distinct alternatives for the most important ethical issue that you identify in Question 1. • The three alternatives should address a range of actions about that one issue only. • The same person or entity should be the “actor” in all three alternatives. • (This section should not exceed one page. Do not analyze the alternatives here!)

Thoroughly evaluate the alternatives, their outcomes, and their possible effects on all of the parties involved. • For each alternative: what is the effect on each important stakeholder if this course of action is followed? • Are there any effects on stakeholders whom you do not consider “important”? • Do these alternatives satisfy the ethical model you consider most relevant? • (This can be a lengthy analysis as there are many stakeholders in society. It is a major part of your paper and requires you to consider all of the possibilities and their effects on the stakeholders. It should be approximately three to four pages.)

Make a specific recommendation based on your analysis of the case, on the important facts that you’ve identified in Question 2, and support it with a moral theory. A) Be sure to state how your recommendation is tied to your analysis and facts and how it is supported by ethical models. B) Name any specific professional code(s) of ethics that might be applicable to the entities in this case and state how the code(s) would support your recommendation. Conduct research to find current day codes of ethics that are applicable. • Your recommendation should be one of the three alternatives that you have proposed. Use supporting data (e.g., important facts of case, analysis of alternatives, support offered by specific code(s) of professional ethics, key concepts studied in the course, and ethical models) to argue why your recommendation is the best alternative. • Merely stating your opinion without supporting data (e.g., important facts of case, analysis of alternatives, support offered by specific code(s) of professional ethics, key concepts studied in the course, and ethical models) is not a recommendation. • Does your recommendation provide a reasoned solution to the issue(s) you identified in Question 1? (This part of your paper should be at least one page.)

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical landscape of contemporary business practices is complex and multidimensional, involving numerous stakeholders and nuanced considerations. This paper examines a corporate case to identify the core ethical issues, analyze pertinent facts, evaluate stakeholder impacts, explore alternative actions, and ultimately recommend the most ethically sound course of action supported by relevant moral theories and professional codes of ethics.

Introduction

At the heart of many corporate ethical dilemmas lies a conflict between profitability and social responsibility. The case under analysis involves a manufacturing company facing allegations of environmental violations, which raises critical questions about ethical obligations toward society, the environment, and shareholders. Understanding these issues requires a systematic analysis of the facts, stakeholders, and potential courses of action grounded in ethical theories such as utilitarianism, rights, and justice.

Identification of Ethical Issues

The primary ethical issue in this case pertains to whether the company's decision to continue operations despite evidence of environmental harm constitutes a breach of ethical responsibility. This is fundamentally an issue of balancing corporate profits against environmental stewardship and societal well-being. The case raises questions about the company's obligation to uphold environmental standards and to act transparently with regulators and the public. The relevant ethical models—utilitarianism, which emphasizes actions that maximize overall well-being; rights-based approaches, which protect the rights of communities and individuals; and justice, which advocates for fairness in distribution and treatment—are all pertinent to analyzing this dilemma.

Pertinent Facts of the Case

The case involves a manufacturing firm that has been found to emit pollutants exceeding legal limits. Despite internal reports indicating environmental violations, management prioritized cost savings over compliance, motivated by the desire to maintain competitive pricing. The company’s code of ethics emphasizes environmental responsibility and transparency, yet these principles appear to have been overlooked. Legally, several environmental standards and regulatory controls issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are implicated. The presence of internal whistleblower reports and investigations further solidify the factual background, highlighting discrepancies between corporate policies and actual practices.

Stakeholders, Harms, Benefits, and Rights

Stakeholders include shareholders who seek profits, employees who depend on the company, local communities affected by pollution, regulatory bodies overseeing environmental compliance, and environmental advocacy groups. Currently, local residents suffer health harms from exposure to pollutants, and the environment itself has been adversely affected. Conversely, the company benefits financially from avoiding costly upgrades and regulatory penalties. Rights exercised include the community’s right to a clean environment and the company’s right to pursue profit, whereas rights denied include the residents’ right to health and a safe environment. These harms and benefits form the basis for assessing ethical responses and future stakeholder impacts.

Alternatives to Address the Ethical Issue

Three potential courses of action include:

1. Immediate cessation of violations and full compliance with environmental regulations, involving management undertaking necessary upgrades and transparency with the public.
2. Implementing a phased approach to reduce emissions gradually while communicating openly with regulators and stakeholders about commitments and progress.
3. Negotiating with regulators for leniency or penalty reductions conditioned on future compliance and corporate social responsibility initiatives.

Evaluation of Alternatives

Chose to analyze each alternative's implications comprehensively. The first option maximizes environmental benefits and upholds corporate responsibility, aligning with deontological and utilitarian perspectives, but may impose financial strain on the company. The second offers a compromise that balances operational continuity with future sustainability, potentially satisfying fairness and justice principles by allowing gradual change. Negotiation as in the third may preserve financial stability but risks undermining long-term environmental responsibility, and could be viewed as ethical compromise or opportunism. When assessing stakeholder impact, the first alternative significantly benefits local communities and the environment but could threaten shareholder returns in the short term. The second mitigates these impacts by enabling a smoother transition. The third’s effects are uncertain and depend heavily on regulator cooperation, which introduces ethical questions about honesty and fairness.

Recommended Course of Action and Ethical Justification

Based on the comprehensive analysis, the recommended course of action is to pursue the first option: immediate cessation of violations, full compliance, and transparent communication. This aligns with the utilitarian model by maximizing overall well-being through environmental protection and public health benefits. It also conforms with the rights-based model, respecting communities' right to a safe environment. The company’s professional code of ethics, such as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code of Ethics, emphasizes the importance of safeguarding public health and well-being, which supports this recommendation. Furthermore, adhering to legal standards and embracing corporate social responsibility demonstrates integrity, reinforcing the company's ethical credibility and stakeholder trust.

This recommendation, although potentially costly, provides a clear, morally justified resolution to the ethical dilemma, emphasizing accountability and responsibility. It demonstrates that ethical corporate conduct is compatible with sustainable business practices, aligning corporate interests with societal good. The decision to prioritize environmental and social responsibilities ensures the company upholds its moral obligations and fosters long-term sustainability, thus embodying the principles of fairness, justice, and respect for fundamental rights.

Conclusion

Ethical decision-making in corporate contexts mandates a careful balance of interests, guided by moral principles and professional standards. This case underscores the importance of transparency, accountability, and the moral duty to protect the environment and public health. Adopting a decisive, ethically grounded approach not only rectifies current violations but also sets a foundation for responsible corporate conduct that respects the rights of all stakeholders.

References

• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine.
• Amnesty International. (2020). Corporate accountability and environmental rights.
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2022). Standards and Regulations for Air Quality.
• American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). (2021). Code of Ethics of Engineers.
• Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Harvard University Press.
• Rawls, J. (2005). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2016). Business Ethics: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalization. Oxford University Press.
• Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268-295.
• Friedman, M., & Friedman, R. (2014). The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth. Princeton University Press.