Week 5 Discussion 1 & 2 BUS 624/625 Response

BUS624 Week 5 - Discussion 1 Response

Guided Response: Respond to at least two of your peers’ posts (as well as any comments made by your instructor) posts in a substantive manner and provide information or concepts that they may not have considered. Each response should have a minimum of 200 words. Support your position by using information from the week’s readings. You are encouraged to post your required replies earlier in the week to promote more meaningful and interactive discourse in this discussion forum.

Below there are two of my classmate’s discussion that needs I need to response to their names are Mark Zuniga and Kyle Jablonski

Mark Zuniga

Suppose a manufacturing facility emits into the air a chemical that it has reason to believe is inadequately regulated by the EPA and that poses a significant threat to nearby residents even at levels lower than permitted by the EPA. As manager of the facility, would you be satisfied to meet the EPA required level or would you install the additional controls you believe necessary to achieve a reasonably safe level? Keep in mind that installing these controls would be expensive and you can anticipate resistance from corporate executives as well as shareholders. Explain why or why not.

I would push to install additional controls necessary to achieve a reasonably safe level in the facility. This decision is based off of Rights Theory and respecting other humans (Langvardt et al., 2019). Knowing a chemical poses a threat to nearby residents needs to be addressed properly. Harming others at the cost of doing business is not ethical and could lead to legal issues down the road. Implementation of additional controls will be costly, but explaining the benefit of protecting the company from negative outcomes of harming nearby residents will be important. The cost to do right by the community should be taken to the fullest possible. Corporate social responsibility is a responsibility corporations have to the community (Langvardt et al., 2019). Bad publicity coming from people discovering this kind of information can be detrimental to overall operations. If the information of harming others comes out after all precautionary measures have been taken, the company can get in front of the story and show the proactive measures taken to protect the community compared to having to defend itself. The EPA protects people and the environment from waste and emissions into the air from business operations. Air toxics can lead to cancer and birth defects (EPA, 2019). Protecting the community from cancer and birth defects is a corporate social responsibility corporations need to share.   

 

Resources

EPA. (2019). Air Enforcement. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/air-enforcement#nsr (Links to an external site.)

Langvardt, A. W., Barnes, A. J., Prenkert, J. D., McCrory, M. A., & Perry, J. E. (2019). Business law: The ethical, global and e-commerce environment (17th ed.). Retrieved from https://www.vitalsource.com (Links to an external site.)

 

Kyle Jablonski

I would begin this conundrum by looking at the in the eyes of multiple different theories. The first theory I look at this from is in the eyes of the shareholder. According to Langvardt, Barnes, Prenkert, McCrory, and Perry (2019), the shareholder theory states, “Premised on the concept that corporate leaders are agents who owe contractual obligations to investors, shareholder theory argues that ethical dilemmas should be resolved with a focus on maximizing the firm’s long-term profits within the limits of the law. (P. 120). On one side of the argument, in the perspective of the stockholders, long term and sustained profitability and growth is the primary driving factor in making decisions.  

The surrounding population satisfaction is another aspect that will be considered. According to Langvardt, Barnes, Prenkert, McCrory, and Perry (2019), “Utilitarianism requires a decision-maker to maximize utility for society as a whole. Maximizing utility means achieving the highest level of satisfaction over dissatisfactions” (P 119). This is ensuring that the surrounding people are happy and pleased with the company. 

If the company installs just the bare minimum to satisfy the EPA regulations, the company may be and most likely be looked at as a whole, as a company that does just enough to not break the law. The reputation of the company may be negatively looked at by shareholders and purchasers of that product. I would rather apologize for high prices than a sub-par product and procedures in manufacturing that product.

Both the shareholders would be satisfied because the employees are happy, due to the upgrade to have a safe environment for the community in which they live. The culture of the company would be positive. Also, there would be third party positive public relations showing that the company cares. Long term success would side with upgrading the facility past just the EPA recommendations for overall profitability outlook from the surrounding community, and culture of the company.

 

Resources:

Langvardt, A. W., Barnes, A. J., Prenkert, J. D., McCrory, M. A., & Perry, J. E. (2019).  Business law: The ethical, global, and e-commerce environment  (17th ed.). Retrieved from https://www.vitalsource.com